Workch:
Please note that this thread is for people that are well grounded in philosophy and any fallacy shouldn't be made while making your points. Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—by demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts—or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist..

hupernikao:


Your thesis above are more premised on creation to ascertain God whereas that same God is ever present around you. Why have to travel centuries back looking for God at creation when he is very much available even in our age. I will allow this to rest.


Now, get this well
Science, observation, evidences are so good and has given us most of the best of things.

But see. The science you see today, is still very much in its tender age, in embryo to knowing or finding God.

If science is to detect God by tools, it will take it more than a billion year to come to grow to that level of technology. Because even as of now, there so much that exist in humanity that the best scientific tool or instrument are yet to know, find or explain.

But like I always say, science will grow and will surely find God even if it takes the eternity to restart again.

Workch:
Appeal to ignorance.

Make a point without fallacies.

hupernikao:


Thanks.

Nothingserious:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-against-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Copy and paste!
Go back and copy more.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sanjacinto-philosophy/chapter/arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-overview/

Next!

peteregwu:
If you ate like believe in the existence of God or not, just wait until you are dead and find yourself in hell fire, your eyes go clear.

Smh..

Workch:
Did I say it wasn't copied or you just don't want to address the topic?

Nothingserious:


When you lift part or a whole of an academic work, you make reference to the work and acknowledge the original owners. Otherwise it becomes an intellectual theft.

You didn’t sound like you lifted it from anywhere. Rather you bragged about it.
So let me respond to your copy and paste by my own copy and paste. But I will acknowledge the link it came from...

Arguments For the Existence of God (Overview)

Aquinas’ Five Ways

For in depth analysis of the individual arguments, see unmoved mover, first cause, argument from contingency, argument from degree, or teleological argument.
In the first part of his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas developed his five arguments for God’s existence. These arguments are grounded in an Aristotelian ontology and make use of the infinite regression argument.[17][18] Aquinas did not intend to fully prove the existence of God as he is orthodoxly conceived (with all of his traditional attributes), but proposed his Five Ways as a first stage, which he built upon later in his work.[19] Aquinas’ Five Ways argued from the unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, argument from degree, and the teleological argument.

The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.[17]
Aquinas’ argument from first cause started with the premise that it is impossible for a being to cause itself (because it would have to exist before it caused itself) and that it is impossible for there to be an infinite chain of causes, which would result in infinite regress. Therefore, there must be a first cause, itself uncaused.[17]
The argument from necessary being asserts that all beings are contingent, meaning that it is possible for them not to exist. Aquinas argued that if everything can possibly not exist, there must have been a time when nothing existed; as things exist now, there must exist a being with necessary existence, regarded as God.[17]
Aquinas argued from degree, considering the occurrence of degrees of goodness. He believed that things which are called good, must be called good in relation to a standard of good—a maximum. There must be a maximum goodness that which causes all goodness.[17]
The teleological argument asserts the view that things without intelligence are ordered towards a purpose. Aquinas argued that unintelligent objects cannot be ordered unless they are done so by an intelligent being, which means that there must be an intelligent being to move objects to their ends: God.[17]
Rational warrant

Philosopher Stephen Toulmin is notable for his work in the history of ideas[20] that features the (rational) warrant: a statement that connects the premises to a conclusion.

Joseph Hinman applied Toulmin’s approach in his argument for the existence of God, particularly in his book The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief.[21]Instead of attempting to prove the existence of God, Hinman argues you can “demonstrate the rationally warranted nature of belief”.[22]

Hinman uses a wide range of studies, including ones by Robert Wuthnow, Andrew Greeley, Mathes and Kathleen Nobel to establish that mystical experiences are life-transformative in a way that is significant, positive and lasting.[23] He draws on additional work to add several additional major points to his argument. First, the people who have these experiences not only do not exhibit traditional signs of mental illness but, often, are in better mental and physical health than the general population due to the experience.[24] Second, the experiences work. In other words, they provide a framework for navigating life that is useful and effective.[25] All of the evidence of the positive effects of the experience upon people’s lives he, adapting a term from Derrida, terms “the trace of God”: the footprints left behind that point to the impact.

Finally, he discusses how both religious experience and belief in God is, and has always been, normative among humans:[26] people do not need to prove the existence of God. If there is no need to prove, Hinman argues, and the Trace of God (for instance, the impact of mystical experiences on them), belief in God is rationally warranted.

Deductive arguments

Ontological argument

The ontological argument has been formulated by philosophers including St. Anselm and René Descartes. The argument proposes that God’s existence is self-evident. The logic, depending on the formulation, reads roughly as follows:[27]

Whatever is contained in a clear and distinct idea of a thing must be predicated of that thing; but a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect Being contains the idea of actual existence; therefore since we have the idea of an absolutely perfect Being such a Being must really exist.[27]

Thomas Aquinas criticized the argument for proposing a definition of God which, if God is transcendent, should be impossible for humans.[28] Immanuel Kant criticized the proof from a logical standpoint: he stated that the term “God” really signifies two different terms: both idea of God, and God. Kant concluded that the proof is equivocation, based on the ambiguity of the word God.[29] Kant also challenged the argument’s assumption that existence is a predicate (of perfection) because it does not add anything to the essence of a being. If existence is not a predicate, then it is not necessarily true that the greatest possible being exists.[30] A common rebuttal to Kant’s critique is that, although “existence” does add something to both the concept and the reality of God, the concept would be vastly different if its referent is an unreal Being.[citation needed] Another response to Kant is attributed to Alvin Plantinga who explains that even if one were to grant Kant that “existence” is not a real predicate, “Necessary Existence”, which is the correct formulation of an understanding of God, is a real predicate, thus according to Plantinga Kant’s argument is refuted.[31]

Inductive arguments

Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

Another class of philosophers asserts that the proofs for the existence of God present a fairly large probability though not absolute certainty. A number of obscure points, they say, always remain; an act of faith is required to dismiss these difficulties. This view is maintained, among others, by the Scottishstatesman Arthur Balfour in his book The Foundations of Belief (1895). The opinions set forth in this work were adopted in France by Ferdinand Brunetière, the editor of the Revue des deux Mondes. Many orthodox Protestants express themselves in the same manner, as, for instance, Dr. E. Dennert, President of the Kepler Society, in his work Ist Gott tot?[32]
Other arguments

The hypothesis of well design proposes that certain features of the universe and of living things are the product of an intelligent cause.[33] Its proponents are mainly Christians.[34]
Argument from belief in God being properly basic as presented by Alvin Plantinga.[35]
Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability and the evolutionary argument against naturalism, concluding that naturalism is incapable of providing humans with the cognitive apparatus necessary for their knowledge to have positive epistemic status.[36]
Argument from Personal Identity.[37]
Argument from the “divine attributes of scientific law”.[38]
Subjective arguments

Arguments from historical events or personages

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This could only be true if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’adat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
Christianity and Judaism assert that God intervened in key specific moments in history, especially at the Exodus and the giving of the Ten Commandments in front of all the tribes of Israel, positing an argument from empirical evidence stemming from sheer number of witnesses, thus demonstrating his existence.[citation needed]
The argument from the Resurrection of Jesus. This asserts that there is sufficient historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection to support his claim to be the son of God and indicates, a fortiori, God’s existence.[41] This is one of several arguments known as the Christological argument.
Islam asserts that the revelation of its holy book, the Qur’an, and its unique literary attributes, vindicate its divine authorship, and thus the existence of God.[42][43]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as Mormonism, similarly asserts that the miraculous appearance of God, Jesus Christ, and angels to Joseph Smith and others and subsequent finding and translation of the Book of Mormon establishes the existence of God. The whole Latter Day Saint movement makes the same claim for example Community of Christ, Church of Christ (Temple Lot), Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite), etc.[citation needed]
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), similarly asserts that the finding and translation of the Plates of Laban, also known as the Brass Plates, into the Book of the Law of the Lord and Voree plates by James Strang, One Mighty and Strong, establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Various sects that have broken from the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) (such as Church of Christ “With the Elijah Message” and Church of Christ (Assured Way)) claim that the message brought by John the Baptist, One Mighty and Strong, to Otto Fetting and W. A. Draves in The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel establishes the existence of God.[citation needed]
Arguments from testimony

Arguments from testimony rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, possibly embodying the propositions of a specific revealed religion. Swinburne argues that it is a principle of rationality that one should accept testimony unless there are strong reasons for not doing so.[44]

The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and throughout the ages. A variation of this is the argument from miracles (also referred to as “the priest stories”) which relies on testimony of supernatural events to establish the existence of God.
The majority argument argues that the theism of people throughout most of recorded history and in many different places provides prima facie demonstration of God’s existence.
Arguments grounded in personal experiences

The sincere seeker’s argument, espoused by Muslim Sufis of the Tasawwuf tradition, posits that every individual who follows a formulaic path towards guidance, arrives at the same destination of conviction in the existence of God and specifically in the monotheistic tenets and laws of Islam. This apparent natural law for guidance and belief could only be consistent if the formula and supplication were being answered by the same Divine entity being addressed, as claimed in Islamic revelations. This was formally organized by Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali in such notable works as “Deliverance from Error” and “The Alchemy of Happiness,” in Arabic “Kimiya-yi sa’ādat“. The path includes following the golden rule of no harm to others and treating others with compassion, silence or minimal speech, seclusion, daily fasting or minimalist diet of water and basic nourishment, honest wages, and daily supplication towards “the Creator of the Universe” for guidance.[39][40]
An argument for God is often made from an unlikely complete reversal in lifestyle by an individual towards God. Paul of Tarsus, a persecutor of the early Church, became a pillar of the Church after his conversion on the road to Damascus. Modern day examples in Evangelical Protestantism are sometimes called “Born-Again Christians“.
The Scottish School of Common Sense led by Thomas Reid taught that the fact of the existence of God is accepted by people without knowledge of reasons but simply by a natural impulse. That God exists, this school said, is one of the chief metaphysical principles that people accept not because they are evident in themselves or because they can be proved, but because common sense obliges people to accept them.[citation needed]
The Argument from a Proper Basis argues that belief in God is “properly basic”; that it is similar to statements like “I see a chair” or “I feel pain”.[citation needed]Such beliefs are non-falsifiable and, thus, neither provable nor disprovable; they concern perceptual beliefs or indisputable mental states.
In Germany, the School of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi taught that human reason is able to perceive the suprasensible. Jacobi distinguished three faculties: sense, reason, and understanding. Just as sense has immediate perception of the material so has reason immediate perception of the immaterial, while the understanding brings these perceptions to a person’s consciousness and unites them to one another.[45] God’s existence, then, cannot be proven (Jacobi, like Immanuel Kant, rejected the absolute value of the principle of causality), it must be felt by the mind.
In Emile, Jean-Jacques Rousseau asserted that when a person’s understanding ponders over the existence of God it encounters nothing but contradictions; the impulses of people’s hearts, however, are of more value than the understanding, and these proclaim clearly the truths of natural religion, namely, the existence of God and the immortality of the soul.[citation needed]
The same theory was advocated in Germany by Friedrich Schleiermacher, who assumed an inner religious sense by means of which people feel religious truths. According to Schleiermacher, religion consists solely in this inner perception, and dogmatic doctrines are inessential.[46]
Many modern Protestant theologians follow in Schleiermacher’s footsteps, and teach that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated; certainty as to this truth is only furnished to people by inner experience, feeling, and perception.[citation needed]
Modernist Christianity also denies the demonstrability of the existence of God. According to them, one can only know something of God by means of the vital immanence, that is, under favorable circumstances the need of the divine dormant in one’s subconsciousness becomes conscious and arouses that religious feeling or experience in which God reveals himself.[citation needed] In condemnation of this view the Oath Against Modernism formulated by Pius X, a Pope of the Catholic Church, says: “Deum … naturali rationis lumine per ea quae facta sunt, hoc est per visibilia creationis opera, tanquam causam per effectus certo cognosci adeoque demostrari etiam posse, profiteor.” (“I declare that by the natural light of reason, God can be certainly known and therefore his existence demonstrated through the things that are made, i.e., through the visible works of creation, as the cause is known through its effects.”)
Brahma Kumaris religion was established in 1936, when God was said to enter the body of diamond merchant Lekhraj Kripalani (1876–1969) in Hyderabad, Sindh and started to speak through him.[47][48]
Hindu arguments

Most schools of Hindu philosophy accept the existence of a creator god (Brahma), while some do not. The school of Vedanta argues that one of the proofs of the existence of God is the law of karma. In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).[49]

A human’s karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the axe moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious supreme Being who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits.[50] Thus, God affects the person’s environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences.[51] Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma;[52] it is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some are poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual’s actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God.[52] This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.[52]

Workch:
OK noted.

Can you adresss the topic now?

Nothingserious:


Thanks. These long and fine arguments done by the philosophers is okay already.
Points and counter points...

Will you believe my subjective personal experiences of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit ministration if I talk about it?
That’s just the additional thing I could add to the intellectual arguments up there.

Workch:
Please note that this thread is for people that are well grounded in philosophy and any fallacy shouldn't be made [/b]while making your points. [b]Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—

Workch:

Empirical arguments
Empirical arguments depend on knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation to prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur’an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha’i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The argument from parsimony (using Occam’s razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in God's, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

The analogy of Russell’s teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell’s teapot analogy can be considered an extension of Occam’s Razor.

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book the Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings. Some Christian philosophers disagree.

Workch:

Deductive arguments
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum.

Workch:

Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if ...

Workch:

Subjective arguments
Anecdotal evidence
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.

Workch:

Please note that this thread is for people that are well grounded in philosophy and any fallacy shouldn't be made while making your points. Each of the arguments below aims to show that a particular set of gods does not exist—by demonstrating them to be inherently meaningless, contradictory, or at odds with known scientific or historical facts—or that there is insufficient proof to say that they do exist.

Empirical arguments
Empirical arguments depend on knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation to prove their conclusions.

The argument from inconsistent revelations contests the existence of the deity called God as described in scriptures—such as the Hindu Vedas, the Jewish Tanakh, the Christian Bible, the Muslim Qur’an, the Book of Mormon or the Baha’i Aqdas—by identifying apparent contradictions between different scriptures, within a single scripture, or between scripture and known facts.

The problem of evil contests the existence of a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent by arguing that such a god should not permit the existence of evil or suffering. The theist responses are called theodicies.

The destiny of the unevangelized, by which persons who have never even heard of a particular revelation might be harshly punished for not following its dictates.

The argument from poor design contests the idea that God created life on the basis that lifeforms, including humans, seem to exhibit poor design.

The argument from nonbelief contests the existence of an omnipotent God who wants humans to believe in him by arguing that such a god would do a better job of gathering believers.

The argument from parsimony (using Occam’s razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in God's, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon.

The analogy of Russell’s teapot argues that the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the theist rather than the atheist. The Russell’s teapot analogy can be considered an extension of Occam’s Razor.

Stephen Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow state in their book the Grand Design that it is reasonable to ask who or what created the universe, but if the answer is God, then the question has merely been deflected to that of who created God. Both authors claim that it is possible to answer these questions purely within the realm of science, and without invoking any divine beings. Some Christian philosophers disagree.
Deductive arguments
Deductive arguments attempt to prove their conclusions by deductive reasoning from true premises.

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the argument from design. The argument from design claims that a complex or ordered structure must be designed. However, a god that is responsible for the creation of a universe would be at least as complicated as the universe that it creates. Therefore, it too must require a designer. And its designer would require a designer also, ad infinitum. The argument for the existence of God is then a logical fallacy with or without the use of special pleading. The Ultimate 747 gambit states that God does not provide an origin of complexity, it simply assumes that complexity always existed. It also states that design fails to account for complexity, which natural selection can explain.

The omnipotence paradox suggests that the concept of an omnipotent entity is logically contradictory, from considering a question like: “Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it?” or “If God is all powerful, could God create a being more powerful than Himself?”
The omniscience paradox contests further problems between omnipotence and omniscience, such as a lack of ability to create something unknown to God.

The problem of hell is the idea that eternal damnation for actions committed in a finite existence contradicts God’s omnibenevolence or omnipresence.

The argument from free will contests the existence of an omniscient god who has free will—or has allotted the same freedom to his creations—by arguing that the two properties are contradictory. According to the argument, if God already knows the future, then humanity is destined to corroborate with his knowledge of the future and not have true free will to deviate from it. Therefore, our free will contradicts an omniscient god. Another argument attacks the existence of an omniscient god who has free will directly in arguing that the will of God himself would be bound to follow whatever God foreknows himself doing throughout eternity.

A counter-argument against the Cosmological argument (“chicken or the egg”) takes its assumption that things cannot exist without creators and applies it to God, setting up an infinite regress. This attacks the premise that the universe is the second cause (after God, who is claimed to be the first cause).
Theological noncognitivism, as used in literature, usually seeks to disprove the god-concept by showing that it is unverifiable by scientific tests.

The anthropic argument states that if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect, He would have created other morally perfect beings instead of imperfect humans.

Inductive arguments
Inductive arguments argue their conclusions through inductive reasoning.

The atheist-existential argument for the non-existence of a perfect sentient being states that if existence precedes essence, it follows from the meaning of the term sentient that a sentient being cannot be complete or perfect. It is touched upon by Jean-Paul Sartre in Being and Nothingness. Sartre’s phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms. The argument is echoed thus in Salman Rushdie‘s novel Grimus: “That which is complete is also dead.”
The “no reason” argument tries to show that an omnipotent and omniscient being would not have any reason to act in any way, specifically by creating the universe, because it would have no needs, wants, or desires since these very concepts are subjectively human. Since the universe exists, there is a contradiction, and therefore, an omnipotent god cannot exist. This argument is expounded upon by Scott Adams in the book God’s Debris, which puts forward a form of Pandeism as its fundamental theological model. A similar argument is put forward in Ludwig von Mises‘s “Human Action”. He referred to it as the “praxeological argument” and claimed that a perfect being would have long ago satisfied all its wants and desires and would no longer be able to take action in the present without proving that it had been unable to achieve its wants faster—showing it imperfect.
The “historical induction” argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts’ popular quotation:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

Subjective arguments
Anecdotal evidence
Similar to the subjective arguments for the existence of God, subjective arguments against the supernatural mainly rely on the testimony or experience of witnesses, or the propositions of a revealed religion in general.
The witness argument gives credibility to personal witnesses, contemporary and from the past, who disbelieve or strongly doubt the existence of God.
The conflicted religions argument notes that many religions give differing accounts as to what God is and what God wants; since all the contradictory accounts cannot be correct, many if not all religions must be incorrect. The disappointment argument claims that if, when asked for, there is no visible help from God, there is no reason to believe that there is a God.

Workch:
Alright, have a nice night then

I will only believe a testable evidence and not personal revelation

Nothingserious:


Interesting!

The personal experiences are subjective.
There is no empirical evidence for God as science has no tool yet ( I doubt it will ever have) to test for God. Science only says “ we don’t know yet”. But some unscrupulous scientists (humans) would want to speak for science as though science had said anything.

God is argued in philosophy and logic. There are no tools to empirically test logic, maths or consciousness. Yet we believe by our experiences that these things are real and have direct effects on us.

You could go back and continue reading up your points and counter points or you could take your decision based on your worldview and end it up there. It’s after all a personal decision to say evidences indicated are SUFFICIENT OR NOT SUFFICIENT, rather than saying no evidences were presented at all.

I say those points you listed first aren’t sufficient enough to conclude there is no God. They aren’t. Maybe until a day you empirically show there is no God, I will agree with you on your strict empiricism and materialism stance.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers


“One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
- Stephen Hawkings


“I finally gave up on God when I was 15,” Richard Dawkins writes ... But failure to disprove something is not a good reason to believe it.”- Richard Dawkins.

He couldn’t empirically show there is no God. He keeps talking about low probabilities of the existence of God, but was never certain.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]

~Richard C. Lewontin

Nothingserious:


Interesting!

The personal experiences are subjective.
There is no empirical evidence for God as science has no tool yet ( I doubt it will ever have) to test for God. Science only says “ we don’t know yet”. But some unscrupulous scientists (humans) would want to speak for science as though science had said anything.

God is argued in philosophy and logic. There are no tools to empirically test logic, maths or consciousness. Yet we believe by our experiences that these things are real and have direct effects on us.

You could go back and continue reading up your points and counter points or you could take your decision based on your worldview and end it up there. It’s after all a personal decision to say evidences indicated are SUFFICIENT OR NOT SUFFICIENT, rather than saying no evidences were presented at all.

I say those points you listed first aren’t sufficient enough to conclude there is no God. They aren’t. Maybe until a day you empirically show there is no God, I will agree with you on your strict empiricism and materialism stance.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

~Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers


“One can't prove that God doesn't exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”
- Stephen Hawkings


“I finally gave up on God when I was 15,” Richard Dawkins writes ... But failure to disprove something is not a good reason to believe it.”- Richard Dawkins.

He couldn’t empirically show there is no God. He keeps talking about low probabilities of the existence of God, but was never certain.

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]

~Richard C. Lewontin

Workch:
What do you mean by it has no tool yet?

Nothingserious:


Sir see that Lewontin Richard quote.
Follow it line by line.

I also intentionally dropped quotes from renowned and respected scientists who aren’t Christians or theists.

Lewontin said we cannot give a foothold to the supernatural. He said it is their a priori disposition.
He also said they are tilted towards materialism.
Those guys are very sound scientists yet they concede science has nothing to say or disprove the supernatural and religion. If they had any tool to dismiss the supernatural and religion, they would have done that and published it in different texts.

So you see? They simply made a decision to stick to their a priori worldview and that’s it.
Nothing more.

Cheers

Workch:
Dropping quotes from a scientist without evidence is fallacy of appealing to authority.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Albert Einstein that made the quote, as long as it doesn’t have evidence it can’t be taken seriously.


You should avoid that fallacy .

Now what do you mean by there’s no tool to test supernatural yet?

Workch:
Dropping quotes from a scientist without evidence is fallacy of appealing to authority.
It doesn’t matter if it’s Albert Einstein that made the quote, as long as it doesn’t have evidence it can’t be taken seriously.


You should avoid that fallacy .

Now what do you mean by there’s no tool to test supernatural yet?

Crystyano:


First, you don't have to prove that God doesn't exist


There's no definition of God that shows how God can exist



Same thing with the supernatural


There's no definition of the supernatural that shows how it can exist



So,stop talking about testing the supernatural....let there be a definition that shows how it can exist before anyone talks about testing it.....

Nothingserious:


Ah! There you go!

So let me remind you that those texts you copied yesterday even without acknowledging the intellectual rights of the writers was also an appeal to authority.
You neither formed nor developed those arguments. You give back to us what you read. You weren’t born with those knowledge. So you should know a fine line between us reeling out what we have learnt and appealing to authorities we study from.

That said, those comments were made in the course of discussions on God. If you think Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Hawkings etc should not be listened to when they speak, that’s fine. But a lot of atheists and skeptics draw arguments from their texts.
I am sure you would also like to quote them when it’s convenient for your arguments. Now that they concede no one can disprove the existence of God, you think I appeal to authority. Lol

So tell me what scientific tool we can use to investigate and prove the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, maths, logic, consciousness.

Are you also aware that science cannot proof it’s scientific laws? Science doesn’t have a tool to prove its scientific laws.

But if you say you have the tools, show me here. I mean empirically!

Nothingserious:


Ah! There you go!

So let me remind you that those texts you copied yesterday even without acknowledging the intellectual rights of the writers was also an appeal to authority.
You neither formed nor developed those arguments. You give back to us what you read. You weren’t born with those knowledge. So you should know a fine line between us reeling out what we have learnt and appealing to authorities we study from.

That said, those comments were made in the course of discussions on God. If you think Richard Dawkins, Richard Lewontin, Stephen Hawkings etc should not be listened to when they speak, that’s fine. But a lot of atheists and skeptics draw arguments from their texts.
I am sure you would also like to quote them when it’s convenient for your arguments. Now that they concede no one can disprove the existence of God, you think I appeal to authority. Lol

So tell me what scientific tool we can use to investigate and prove the supernatural, religion, aesthetics, maths, logic, consciousness.

Are you also aware that science cannot proof it’s scientific laws? Science doesn’t have a tool to prove its scientific laws.

But if you say you have the tools, show me here. I mean empirically!

Workch:
It's not compulsory that it has to be a scientific tool that will test for your God.
It can be anything even outside of science.

For example, you can show us that miracle is real by growing the limb of an amputee, there's nothing scientific in this method. It's a simple method and this will go a long way to change the mind of many atheists.

Making it look like we can't test your God is dubious and a subtle way of telling us to accept it without questioning it.

Workch:
Another unscientific way to test for the omnipotent attribute of your God is to go to say accident and emergency ward of LUTH and heal those who recently had accident. Like replenish their flesh immediately.
This is just simple and a nonscientific way of providing evidence. Atleast we have verifiable data that can be tracked to confirm this miracle unlike those they perfrom in churches.

You must not make the whole situation so difficult just because you don't want people to expose you.

Workch:
You are right since theism makes it very ambiguous, however we can test for the attributes of specific gods. Every good have well defined attributes, these attributes gives us what to test for.

For example, the Christian God has the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, these attributes can and has been tested to be false. So when I ask for how we can test for a god, I am actually asking the proponent of that God to state a well defined attribute of his specific God and then we test those attributes.

If he/she keeps shifting goalpost then you know there's something wormg.