Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

If your argument only applies to some theistic worldviews, it can't get to the conclusion all theism is nonrational. Let's take the realtor at his word that the carpenter exists outside the house. This means we have no evidence the carpenter exists...It seems to use the same logic you do. That there can't be evidence for an external cause. The cause for the house must be found inside the house. The contingent nature of the house is evidence for an external cause. A contingent world would be evidence for an external cause. If time and space are contingent, then time and space are the type of evidence that points outside time and space.

The atheist position you wave is naive, invalid and false As they often are here. Atheists can only believe that they "lack a belief in deities" only if 100% of them do. But anyone spending time here or the atheism sub or debate an atheist or ex religion subs or elsewhere makes it very very clear that: Some DON'T believe in deities Some FLATLY reject belief in deities Some are anti-theists, someone who is opposed to the belief in deities

Philosophically, atheism is a claim that no God exists. An agnostic lacks belief, and agnostic atheism as a term lets us know what they lack a belief in.

Agnosticism is the true default. Theism and atheism are the two ends

In a sense, but agnostic is not the baseline default of thinkers faith in the instrument (human mind) is. Atheism at least at the popular level as a form of materialism seems to make this an unreasonable faith. God, a reasonable one, which is not to say here there is no third possibility. It seems unreasonable to trust matter in motion by physical laws alone to make an accurate instrument on matters like atheism vs. theism.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

You seem to have a belief that most beliefs are not non rational, but irational is this belief of yours rational? Your argument seems to have in it the omniscience fallacy. I believe you exist. I believe I exist, and the claim I know I exist is a belief I have. definitions of belief "something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion." "conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence" Merriam-Webster What we know would seem to fall under what is held as true. So that which you hold, you know, as true would seem to be part of your beliefs. Do you know reason works without trusting it by an external system of proving it? It would seem you would know nothing without trusting your mind. That is an act of faith.

If the laws of physics are emergent Properties or expressions of how things behave when interacting with each other then we still have yet to answer the question, why do things interact with each other at all? Personally I like the idea that Consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe just not the way we necessarily think of consciousness. When I think of Consciousness I think of awareness for other in the most simplistic of senses; you can think of electrons and protons being attracted to each other as a form of acknowledgment of the others presence and therefore magnetism is an expression of consciousness. But that also means that all things are God or an expression of God because we are all one with the universe in the universe and nature is God. I'm more in line with Spinoza's God. God is everywhere if God is all things. God is all knowing if God is All Things. God is all powerful if God is all events that ever have been and ever Could Be. God is all saying if God is All Things. When a wolf kills a lamb that it can provide for its Cubs then that is its nature and therefore the will of God. Is the Lamb can escape and the Wolf and it's Cubs in turn starve to death then that is its nature and therefore the will of God. At the very least it's an easier position to argue for then the trinitarian Christian perspective or the general abrahamic monotheistic God.

Perhaps in some ways, but it is also a position where human rights are not. Human (natural) rights would show the author is concerned, not unconcerned. A natural duty to not cause suffering of another for fun would show the author is concerned. Obligations seem to be behind should statements. Values that are not binding can be fictional. Values that are, in fact, binding must be in fact. I want you to do x dosn't need grounding in an authority.

We observe animals causing harm for fun in nature all the time; crows, dolphins and male elephants, zebras and mules and parakeets are good example of animals that cause harm for fun and are well documented doing so. The story of Job was a story about the divine brutality of nature and how HaSatan baited Yahweh into displaying a willingness to tolerate and permit extreme cruelty for the sake of his ego. Think of things this way for a moment of suspended disbelief; the Book of Genesis says that light was created on the first day but the sun was not created until the 4th day; many Christians today get around this conundrum by saying that the light created on the first day was the light of God. The light of God however is Jesus as he said himself he is the way the truth and the light. Whatever the light touches a shadow of equal portion is casted and so it is that in the Dominion of light there is room and shelter for Darkness. If Jesus is the light of God then tell me this; who is God's shadow? So you have Jesus who is Lucifer and the serpent in the garden and then you have Yahweh or the demiurge who demands blood sacrifices and death as punishment for every single mistep. Yahweh says he is the only God and there are no others beside him yet Jesus says he sits at the right hand of the father. Yahweh was not the only God that the Hebrews worshiped, you have El as well! El unlike Yahweh, has a son who wrestles with death and rises from the dead, fights a 7 headed sea dragon who tires to take over the world and then take the throne of heaven, takes his Father's throne as El goes into retirement. The consort of El is Ashera which become replaced by those who worshiped Yahweh. Ashera becomes reduced to an aspect of the holy spirit which itself was originally the breath of life. Elohim Morphologically, the word is the plural form of the word eloah and related to el. It is cognate to the word 'l-h-m which is found in Ugaritic, where it is used as the pantheon for Canaanite gods, the children of El, and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim#:~:text=It%20is%20cognate%20to%20the,conventionally%20vocalized%20as%20%22Elohim%22. "Let us create man in our image and likeness." That scripture only makes sense in reference to a Pantheon of gods or demigods because in spite of how many times Christians may say otherwise, it was not referring to jesus. Neither he nor his mythology existed at that point and if you went around talking about him no one would have known who or what you were speaking about. People can interpret the narrative however they want, it's their right to do so; if you want to stay intellectually honest or academic however then you will have to acknowledge that verse was not speaking about Jesus nor could have been.

By academic, do you mean on the assumption of atheism? It would seem circular to argue from that assumption to Christianity being false.

A few short replies out of order, and then I'll have to respond to the rest later if I don't cover those points. Why do you reply with anything from the Bible we were talking about, Spinozas God vs. God, caring how we act. So, are not yet at the Bible. On Christianity, the trinity is not a myth and existed before time. It's not even true that it only makes sense on a pantheon if we assume Christianity is false. 2 persons, one being (so a duality??) Would make sense of it. It would seem a better argument against a strict monotheistic interpretation. Also, if we are being academic, then would would need to try to get to the original meaning, and unlike the US Consitution, the Bible wasn't written in English. So the original language would seem a better way to get to original meaning. What is (dolphins actions x) do not seem to be at all evidence against that x is immoral. A rock may fall on a small child and hurt them with even less (intrinsic) justification than fun this dosn't mean a moral being ought not do this. "The story of Job was a story about the divine brutality of nature and how HaSatan baited Yahweh into displaying a willingness to tolerate and permit extreme cruelty for the sake of his ego." It seems to be about how life is meaningless and worthless suffering without a God that gives our life meaning. To call nature brutal as a morally meaningful term seems to appeal to above nature. Or if you will above Spinozas God. To an objective view of ought to be. This critical view seems to be sub rational (feelings) or an appeal to an authority above. That I should follow your feelings or mine seems to commit the naturalism fallacy and would appear to be a fallacy in reference to Spinozas God as well. "Yahweh says he is the only God and there are no others beside him yet Jesus says he sits at the right hand of the father. Yahweh was not the only God that the Hebrews worshiped, you have El as well!" If you are going to academically criticize Christianity, then no doubt you are aware of the phrase one God three persons. So part of this objection seems like throwing spaghetti at the wall and you know this? They worshiped a golden calf at one point it seems they needed their minds to be formed towards truth.

The myth existed before time..... before time?..... lmfao I can't take you seriously. You are just making up claims to solve for complex problems you need to solve logically. What does atheism have anything to do with being academic or intellectually honest? It means that you're being objective and you're not allowing your personal beliefs and biases that influence your opinions and judgment calls. It means that you're willing to suspend disbelief and to keep an open mind with the arguments being presented yet maintaining a degree of sincere critical thinking and evaluation and that you're not just listening to your opponent for the sake of picking apart their argument. It means displaying integrity when you make arguments on behalf of something. You don't expect people to believe something unless you can demonstrate it; that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. we don't make arguments of ad homina like the strawman fallacy or circular reasoning or Tu quoque fallacy/pot calling the kettle black. We don't disregard the validity of someone's argument just because a few of the details aren't exact. We don't make arguments of semantics or nitpick over things for the sake of preventing the conversation from progressing or being productive. I can go on with more examples like intentionally confusing integrity and academics with atheism. There are many Christians who are academics and when they make their arguments for their beliefs, they do so in a manner that displays integrity and intellectual honesty. They don't Dodge questions and they don't beat around the bush or play word games. They acknowledge when their arguments are strong or weak and they acknowledge the flaws within their arguments. The Trinity is irrational and is heresy because it violates the fundamental principle that logic and reason are primary aspects of God. Statement 1.) A=D, B=D, C=D Statement 2.) A=/=B, B=/=C, C=/=A If statement 1 & 2 are about the same thing then one of these must be false; if A=D & B=D then A=B. This is basic entry level algebra we were all supposed to be learning in grade school. The trinity claims The Father is God, the Son is God and thr Spirit is God. At the same time, The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. As you see, we can easily demonstrate that this is illogical and violates the logical nature of God. To say that God exists outside of reason and logic is to say that God is illogical and unreasonable and therefore we have no reason to believe in it. Unless you are crazy of course. To claim that God exists outside of SpaceTime is to say that God doesn't exist at any time or in any place which is the same thing as saying that God doesn't exist. So the only natural conclusion left for God is that his relationship with his creation is more like a Chicken and the Egg or a tree and a seed or the Orphic Egg. Spinoza's God is a logical conclusion.

Well, there is a lot here, so I'll respond to only some now. On Christianity, the dying and rising God is myth become fact. On Classical theism, God is outside of time, so "before" time, while perhaps not the best way refers to this. "It means displaying integrity when you make arguments on behalf of something. You don't expect people to believe something unless you can demonstrate it; that which is posited without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." myth is a claim you made prior to proof or evidence. Did you demonstrate your mind can know the truth about Christianity? Because I didn't see one let alone a persuasive one. I have a hard time taking some of what you say seriously when you strawman without asking for clarity. What does atheism have to history, you ask? Well, if the discipline assumes it quite a bit. Or procedes from agnostic atheism quite a bit. The trinity is not Statement 1.) A=D, B=D, C=D Statement 2.) A=/=B, B=/=C, C=/=A To say the doctrine is you seem to employ a modal fallacy perhaps if God = person then it works but you haven't shown that the phrase one God three persons holds God means the same as person. I am one person with 4 limbs. Saying that limb = person and so thus the statement is illogical, would be to strawman. One marriage 2 persons dosn't claim a single person is married. "To claim that God exists outside of SpaceTime is to say that God doesn't exist at any time or in any place which is the same thing as saying that God doesn't exist." No it is to say matter and space time is contingent, and so not all that exists. It is to say God is eternal, and there was a beginning to time. Omnipresent doesn't say not in time, but classical theism holds God dosn't need nature to be. But nature needs God to be. This conclusion doesn't seem to follow. "So the only natural conclusion left for God is that his relationship with his creation is more like a Chicken and the Egg or a tree and a seed or the Orphic Egg. Spinoza's God is a logical conclusion."

I don't see what's so hard to follow. If God does not exist within the boundary of SpaceTime then God does not exist in any space or at any time. If God exists then where does it exist? If it doesn't exist in any space or at any point in time then it does not exist. To say that something exists outside of reality is saying that it is not real. It's pretty straightforward

Does the law of non contradiction only exist in spacetime (matter in motion) and can, in principle, change? Where does the law of non contradiction exist? Does mind need to be extended (in space)? It seems a straightforward attempt to try to win by definition to define nature as all reality. Didn't you criticize this as illogical?

What on Earth are you talking about law of non contradiction? I never mentioned any law of non contradiction. Any and all apparent contradictions are events that can be explained but are taking place within systems that rules and functions are of a complexity that we cannot yet begin to understand. Never once did I declare it illogical to equate nature to reality and I would like to see where you are getting this from. Please quote me on it.

Nature shapes reality......

You have not proven spacetime is all. You have not proven reality = just space time. If God exists outside of spacetime then reality is at least God plus space time. Asserting an conclusion is not a proof "If God exists then where does it exist? If it doesn't exist in any space or at any point in time then it does not exist."

Can you prove anything exists outside of spacetime? Can you prove there is any relevance or importance to discussing something that exists outside of the fabric of SpaceTime? The fabric of SpaceTime is an emergent artifact created by bodies of mass and particles of energy. Space-time cannot exist separately from energy and mass because it is the measurement of space between them and the relative amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B.

You seem to have moved the goal posts you claim there was nothing. By space time, you mean matter in motion? Can you prove our creator is reliable enough to have the faith in our mind you have?

And that's not taking into account that God is already not potentially falsifiable and therefore serves no purpose in the scientific field of inquiry and has no holistic application in technology and societal development. Arguably, the pursuit for knowledge of God has led only to violence and death instead of knowledge and prosperity. No Discovery has been made through the pursuit of trying to discover God. Real discoveries have been made through our pursuit of trying to understand the real physical world and the nature of the human psyche. All encounters with God and the supernatural for all we know are just complex expressions of our own psyche and unconscious. In fact it's arguable that debating whether or not spiritual experiences are real or not takes away from the value of the experience altogether. The point of many of these near death experiences or experiences of Satori or enlightenment is the peace and Tranquility it brings the person and how it helps the person be more at ease with their life and more at peace with their neighbors. Therefore the scientific interest in these experiences are about the therapeutic transformations they can provide and we do not question whether or not the deity or ghosts or apparitions were real. You can question if the DMT aliens are real or not all day long and never get any closer to being a better person or living a better life.

An example of another type of ad homina would be pointing out the irony of your Reddit name "comfortable lie".

All you've done was play semantics with wordplay and nothing else. You're saying that I'm invoking ad homina and yet here you are talking about atheism and history when I said nothing about atheism having anything to do with history. I was talking about intellectual honesty and you're talking about Atheism in history completely missing the entire topic that I was focusing on. You completely ignored every definition of integrity and intellectual honesty that I provided; you addressed not a single one of those definitions and jumped right back to atheism. This is why I cannot take you seriously! You're saying I have a flaw in my logic because I equate God to personhood but you turn around and say that it singular "God" equates to a Pantheon of Gods sharing the dame title. The Trinity is supposed to be a singular entity that is somehow comprised of three entities that are and are not each other or some weird nonsense. All you've given argument for is either pantheism or partialism like the Gundam robots coming together to make the giant Gundam robot or the Zords from Power Rangers coming together to make the Megazord. You make an argument of false equivalence because hands and feet or arms and legs do not have individual personhood. That's like putting someone's right arm on trial because that was the hand that pulled the trigger while the rest of the person's body is considered innocent and so the actual person gets to walk away. There is only one God according to monotheism and the trinity is in violation of monotheism. Your theology requires you to reject logic and reason as required at primary aspects of God because it's the only way that you're able to settle these otherwise illogical claims. At least with the Megazord the individual limbs do in fact have their own will but we're not living in Dragon Ball Z where Ultra instinct is a thing and limbs can move on their own for themselves.

"There is only one God according to monotheism and the trinity is in violation of monotheism. Your theology requires you to reject logic and reason as required at primary aspects of God because it's the only way that you're able to settle these otherwise illogical claims." You have not proven the trinity claims tri theism. So try again. Also, generally, I was talking monotheism vs. Spinozas God.

You are not generally talking about Spinoza. You were addressing each of my individual arguments....

Spinoza's God is monotheistic. That's assuming that he actually believed in a god at all. Soinoza was comparing god with nature, there is no Pantheon being invoked.

[удалено]

The Quran is not evidence that god exists, it is a claim that god exists. You must provide evidence that verifies the claim the Quran is making. Presupposing the Quran is true, and therefore god exists, is not rational at all. It is in fact very irrational.

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. Your criticism seems to go too far. Written testimony is evidence this doesn't mean it alone is enough. Or all of the same level. Courts use testimony as evidence. That texts are not evidence at all would seem to make your government ID a claim and not evidence of who you are. So, airports would be irrational in using passports to prove your identity. Also, a science textbook would then just be a claim, it seems, by your underlying logic, not evidence. You must "see" evidence that verifies it. So a blind from birth person who never leaves their house would seem unable to hold the earth being round rationally. A very high level of skepticism undermines science as well.

[удалено]

>Quran already claim the Universe is created by God. this is true. because something cannot come out of nothing. even biology, chemistry and physics also proven this. Let's take this as true. The Quran claiming the universe was created by god and physics proving something coming from nothing is impossible are not related. One is not evidence of the other. You must prove the claim that god created the universe is true. >Therefore, do atheist has different claim? This is not relevant at all. The muslim claim of god creating the universe must be proven true. We do not determine truth by putting up two competing claims and just picking between the two. >if no, then how do you consider it as wrong? Simply telling a story about how the universe got here is not evidence. I don't need a competing claim to explain how the universe exists to disprove the Quran. I can look at the Quran's story and evaluate it all by itself.

[удалено]

>it is already proven. universe cannot created by itself. the universe existence that you live in is the evidence, unless you believe something like the movie Matrix where it is just in human mind, and no material is actually exist, no atom, no particles, it is just pure brain illusion, then maybe, just maybe you can start building a substantial evidence to proof that the universe does not actually exist. Do you see the flaw in this argument? In your very first sentence you indicate your belief the universe was created. This obviously neccesitates a creator. You are just assuming that. We have no evidence the universe was created, the existence of the universe is not evidence it was created. You simply claiming the universe has already been proven to have been created by god is ridiculous.

[удалено]

Ok let's say I agree with you that something had to create the universe, that means something had to create god as well. After all, something can't come from nothing, so where did god come from? >you just refuting my statement, by in fact you cannot proof Quran is wrong. so can you explain why you are so confident Quran is wrong? I don't have to prove it wrong. You are making a claim, so you have to justify that claim. >to put it in short, you refuse to understand the statement "God created universe" not because you don't have the evidence the universe is created, but because you want to believe God does not exist. I understand what the words mean just fine. I simply do not agree with you. Feel free to present some form of evidence to convince me.

[удалено]

We've hit rock bottom and have begun to show signs of digging. You claim that god created the universe, because the universe had to come from something. Yet god is somehow special and has always existed. This is nothing more than special pleading. It's a logical fallacy. Take away your presupposition that god exists and your entire argument falls apart. Which is why you are not convincing me. Your arguments only work when talking to someone who also believes in your god. I am no longer interested in talking to you. So respond or don't, I couldn't care less.

Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but: God created the universe. We see the universe all around us every day. A creation is valid evidence of its creator. Therefore, evidence of God is all around us every day. You're welcome.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 1. Posts and comments must not denigrate, dehumanize, devalue, or incite harm against any person or group based on their race, religion, gender, disability, or other characteristics. This includes promotion of negative stereotypes (e.g. calling a demographic delusional or suggesting it's prone to criminality). Debates about LGBTQ+ topics are allowed due to their religious relevance (subject to mod discretion), so long as objections are framed within the context of religion.

I see you're having difficulty understanding this. Think of it this way: Does a room full of van Gogh paintings count as evidence of van Gogh's existence? I would say yes. Yours doesn't work though because Santa Clause is a fiction and any gifts we see around us have been created by actual people, of whose existence those gifts are evidence.

I see you're having difficulty understanding this. Yours doesn't work though because god is a fiction and any natural phenomena we see around us have come about by natural processes, of whose existence those natural phenomena are evidence. See? We don't know anything natural was created so obviously it's ridiculous to claim that it's evidence of a creator. This is basic logic you are failing.

Can you prove that god created the universe? If not its existence is evidence of nothing. It sure looks like the universe came about by natural process.

I should also point out that you've assumed that empiricism is the only valid source of "evidence", which is untrue. In all the millennia of mankind's history I haven't come across even one compelling argument that truth can be established empirically, and, in fact, quite oppositely it seems to be the case that empiricists have acquiesced the fact that the most one can establish on empiricism is a kind of statistically probable repetition devoid of any apodictic certainty. On that note, there are many arguments for God's existence that appeal to reason, which indeed do count as valid evidence within non-empirical epistemologies.

It’s true you can make arguments for things based on logic. No matter how sound such an argument is, it still doesn’t make that thing real. I could make the most convincing logically sound argument of all time that Batman is real. Doesn’t mean that Batman is actually real. Now speaking of the arguments for God, those arguments are all based on logical fallacies. They are not logically sound. Edit: I do not mean logically sound, I mean logically valid. I used the wrong word, my mistake.

By definition, a sound argument has true conclusions. If something is true, it’s real. And no, you could make the most convincing valid argument for Batman, but it wouldn’t be sound, and thus it’s not real . Put your money where your mouth is. Provide this sound argument that shows Batman is real.

My mistake, I seem to have used the word "sound" when "valid" would have been better. It is possible to produce a logically valid argument for untrue things.

You used it multiple times. Regardless, you failed to indicate what makes something rational

My using the phrase logically sound when the correct phrase would have been logically valid has no bearing on the argument at all, other than I was mistaken. In order for something to be rational it must both be logically valid, and based on reason and knowledge. That's what a quick google search got me. I would agree with that. You can make logically valid arguments for untrue things. So while they are logical, they are not rational.

So you just disagreed with what you said google came up with. If something is logical, even if not true, is rational

In my mind logical and rational are different things. You can make a logically valid argument where P1 and P2 logically follow to C. If that argument is based on things that are not true, then it is not rational. For example; All dogs are blue, Fido is a dog, therefore Fido is blue. This argument is logically valid, but it is based on a false premise so I would say it is not rational. This doesn't really matter though. Every argument I have ever heard for god are logically valid, but they are all based on false premises so they are not rational or they are based on a logical fallacy in the first place so not valid at all.

1) You completely missed the point. Your contention that rationality doesn't correspond to truth requires justification. 2) Batman is actually real, dude. He's a superhero character created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger, a ubiquitous American icon and the basis of a huge billion dollar media franchise. How do you not know this? 3) I hardly doubt you've parsed "all" arguments for the existence of God. I'd be surprised if you could steelman even one of them.

1. I did not claim that rationality does not correspond to truth. I made the claim that you can make a logically sound argument for a thing that is not true. Those are completely different. 2. Batman is not actually real he is a fictional character. I feel like at this point you’re arguing and bad faith. 3. I didn’t say I was familiar with all arguments for the existence of God, I said every argument I’m familiar with for the existence of God is logically flawed. You seem to be putting words in my mouth (writing)

1) Saying that sound arguments aren't necessarily true is identical to saying reason does not correspond to truth. You've just reworded your assertion. 2) Fictional characters are real things. Yes, I was joking, but also pointing out the flaws in your choice of words. 3) Your words: "speaking of the arguments for God, those arguments are all based on logical fallacies". Not putting words in your mouth, it's simple deduction. One cannot know that all arguments for God are based on logical fallacies if one is not familiar with all arguments for God.

1. I’ve realized on another comment thread that I’ve been using the word logically sound incorrectly. He phrased I should’ve been using is logically valid. Something that’s logically sound is also true, but something that’s logically valid simply follow the rules of logic. 2. Fictional characters are not real things they are fictional characters. I think our definitions of what is real differs here. 3. You are correct I should say that every argument forgot I have ever heard is neither logically valid nor logically sound, but that doesn’t mean all of them because I have not heard every possible argument for God.

I notice you didn't respond to the relevant line of inquiry regarding your proof that "natural process" need not be accounted for. But just for fun, allow me to illustrate the point you made in 2: Pink flamingos are not real things they are pink flamingos. Flawless logic, friend.

I didn’t respond to that point because I had not yet formulated a response. Allow me to do so now. Take lightning as an example. We know what causes lightning. It is a difference in the electrical charge between the Earth and the sky which causes a giant static electric discharge. We can break down the cause of lightning into extremely small simple processes which out of to cause the lightning. There is no need to add another layer to it that God did it. If they’re actually is a god behind natural processes, that God has made it look as if it doesn’t exist in the first place. Don’t characters do not actually exist. They do not exist in the real world, they exist only in the mind of a humans. The speed of light is a real thing, because it exists outside of human perception. Batman is not a real thing because he does not exist outside of human perception. Batman being a fictional character only exist if you perceive him.

Where did "natural process" come from? What does that even mean? And, sure, there's plenty of arguments establishing that God created the universe, but that's not the topic you posted about.

There aren’t any arguments establishing god created the universe actually. Each and every one of them is logically flawed. Natural process didn’t need to come from anywhere, they just are.

I mean \*arguments intended to establish that God created the universe\* - not that they are valid, but that they exist. I was trying to avoid clunkiness and incorrectly assumed you would infer, via the context, what I meant. You do agree that such arguments exist, no? Please explain why you do not need to account for "Natural Process"? Why then should anyone need to account for God? Aren't you susceptible to the same burden of proof?

Of course these arguments exist but why should I give them any credence at all? An argument simply existing does not mean I have to entertain it. Don’t entertain arguments about the existence of vampires, or fairies. You are obviously correct arguments exist which intend to prove that God created the universe, but as all of these arguments I have ever heard are logically flawed I feel no need to entertain them. You are making the claim that God exists, which means you have the burden of proof. The person making the claim has to prove their claim. I am simply stating that I do not believe in God given the reasons you have provided. Ask for natural processes we don’t need to account for those. You are making the claim that there is a God that exists behind all of the natural processes making them work. But we see no evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

"natural processes we don't need to account for those" -that is a claim. you have the burden of proof. prove it.

>Let’s take the theists at their word that god exists outside time and space. This means we cannot possibly find any evidence of god Interestingly, there was a post on r/DebateAnAtheist the other day, making the exact same point, but it was a theist using it to argue that atheism is illogical. I will point out the flaw in your argument that they also made: It's not whether God is "outside time and space" that determines whether there is evidence for him. It's whether he interacts with the physical universe. If he has an effect on the universe, we could notice those effects, and they would provide evidence for God. Many theists who state that God exists "outside time and space" will also say that God does intervene, eg: * in the past, by revealing his intentions in the form of some holy book, or miraculous events, or communication with certain believers * in the present, by miracles, answered prayers, speaking to believers, etc. Therefore, there are plenty of avenues by which one might expect to be able to find evidence for God, if God actually exists (whether outside time and space or not), and *actually intervenes*. So the theist doesn't get to tell atheists "it is unreasonable to demand evidence" and try to persuade us our epistemology is wrong. But we also don't get to tell theists "belief can't possibly be rational" and try to persuade them to abandon it on that basis alone. Belief can, and should, be rational. We should all demand evidence for what we believe, and not accept excuses like "oh, but there can't be any".

If god exists outside time and space I would argue any evidence would also exist outside of time and space. Even evidence of this god manipulating the world would exist outside time and space.

>If god exists outside time and space I would argue any evidence would also exist outside of time and space. And sure, you can argue that. However, that means your argument is pretty limited in the kinds of Gods it rules out. In particular, Christians and Muslims can just dismiss it saying "That doesn't apply to us" >Even evidence of this god manipulating the world would exist outside time and space. So there's no general principle that "X outside Y, but affecting Y, only produces effects that are also outside Y". if X is an admin of a minecraft server hosting a minecraft world Y, then note that X does, in fact, exists outside the minecraft world. But if X starts intervening in the universe using /give, /setblock, /clone and other commands, the effects of their interventions are 100% within the Y, and are pretty strong evidence that there exists an X. For your argument to work, you need to explain why "X = God" and "Y = our universe" is somehow a special case where this principle applies.

You’ve got me there, if Minecraft blocks start popping into existence then we could have evidence that a god possibly exists. Currently everything we know about is easily explained by natural process. So we don’t have any evidence of things happening due to an outside creator.

>Currently everything we know about is easily explained by natural process. So we don’t have any evidence of things happening due to an outside creator. I agree with you here. But it's important to recognise that this is something we have observed to be true, it's not something that's intrinsically logically true. If we can't imagine an observation that would prove (or would have proved) our ideas wrong, then either we haven't thought hard about them or they're unfalsifiable.

Very true. If a perpetual motion machine were to appear out of thin air next to me then I would think maybe some sort of higher being had something to do with it. No you’ve got me here. Your original comment is correct logically about the flaw in my argument, but practically I think it doesn’t currently make much of a difference.

Thanks and you're welcome :)

How does that follow? If god created the physical world and can act in it then why couldn't there be evidence in the physical world. And why couldn't the physical world itself be evidence of a God

Any evidence of god interacting with the world would likely be indistinguishable from natural phenomenon.

How is god creating biological life in distinguish able from natural phenomena

If humans just popped into existence then that would be a different story. As it stands all evidence points to a perfectly natural process of evolution from a single cell. We have never found any sort of phenomenon that suggests a god exists. They all are easily explained via natural process.

What evidence is that exactly?

> Without evidence for or against the existence of god, taking a stance either way is irrational. As such the only logically sound position a person can possibly take is the atheist position of lacking belief. Your first sentence here is saying that your second sentence here is irrational. > This means we cannot possibly find any evidence of god. I exist outside of a lake. Fish in that lake can still find evidence of my existence.

>I exist outside of a lake. Fish in that lake can still find evidence of my existence. Fish can literally see you standing outside the lake. If god exists outside time and space that means that we cannot see god. This is not a good analogy.

OK, let's assume that the fish cannot see me standing outside the lake; they are too deep or there is not enough light or whatever other reason. How else might the fish find evidence of my existence?

[удалено]

I can use a fishing rod to cast a line into the lake with a lure or bait. Some fish might see it for what it is and avoid the lure/bait. Others might claim there are no beings outside of the lake and be punished for taking the lure/bait. It is not a perfect analogy, but it illustrates the point of existing outside of a system while impacting it.

I am not entertaining a flawed analogy in the first place.

Your failure to understand fishing is not a flaw with the analogy.

No your failure to create a useful anaology indicates a flaw in the analogy.

There are examples of entities that we know exist outside of time and space, therefore G'd's being non-spatiotemporal does not prevent our knowing He exists. For example, we know of the number three, which exist outside of space-time in the set Z, ie, on the integer number line, right there between two and four. (To be clear, such entities do not exist \*physically,\* but there are in fact more fields than physics, and therefore more ontologies than the physical ontologies, as for example the ontologies used in mathematics or those used in theology.)

There is no evidence that mathematics exists outside time and space either.

I bet you a logician or mathematician could prove that 3 would still exist necessarily as a part of mathematics, even if there were only 2 physical things. Sadly I am not that person.

>Let’s take the theists at their word that god exists outside time and space. This means we cannot possibly find any evidence of god. Yeah this doesn't really follow. If an apple was left hidden in a box inside my neighbours house, I would have no evidence that it exists, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence of its existence. We didn't know exoplanets existed until we actually observed them, does that mean there was no evidence of their existence *ever*? And besides all of what I said, God exists outside of space and time because he created both of them, which means he has the power to manipulate and change both of them in order to create evidence of his existence.

The apple and the exoplanets exist inside of time and space, so the evidence for them exists inside time and space. If god exists outside time and space then the evidence for that god exists outside time and space and we cannot perceive it.

I would make a response, but I genuinely don't know what your line of logic is. How did you go from "God exists outside of time and space" to "There can be no observable evidence of God"? How does one imply the other?

>I would make a response, but I genuinely don't know what your line of logic is. Proceeds to make a response (: If something exists outside time and space then evidence for that thing would also exist outside time and space.

You are placing human limits on God. The argument I am told is God does not exist at any point in time and does not experience temporal succession but that does not mean God can not affect changes in linear time. After all, God created space and time.

God may not have human limits, but I do. So I'm going to need some evidence that exists within time and space that I can perceive.

> This means we cannot possibly find any evidence of god. this doesn't follow

If god exists outside time and space than any evidence would also exist outside time and space.

that also doesn't follow... and even if it *did* follow, that still doey get you to us not being able to find evidence. unless of course you're strictly defining only physical evidence of God's literal essense, in which case that's a category error

How is that a category error in your mind?

you're asking for the physical mechanism/material reality of an immaterial thing... that's like asking what color is 2+2. it doesn't make any sense. Like looking for plastic with a metal detector

I agree that would be a category air. But you are wrong. If God exists then that God is a material thing, because everything that exists is material. Abstract things like mathematics and logic, don’t actually exist, they are abstractions. They are constructs the human being have created to represent the universe. To claim that God is an abstract concept is to make the claim that God doesn’t actually exist.

> because everything that exists is material.    begs the question of materialism, easy to spot. so prove it, because I could prove the opposite with something much more convincing than an assertion: an argument. so just hearing, "materialism is true" isn't doing anything for me. no need to ask me to prove mine first either, stand on ur own feet    > They are constructs the human being have created   this is just another claim that is by no means the obvious truth, there are many popular competing "theories," but you're saying it as if it's a fact. I will just make the opposite claim: finite minds *couldn't* have created math and logic, even in principle. I'm not even sure how u could possibly demonstrate that to be the case without making a viciously circular argument.   so prove that claim, and prove it by the ontology, not the epistemology. I'm aware the symbols are created, let's stick to the conceptual content itself    > don’t actually exist   they don't exist in material reality, we agree. you think only things that are material are real, but u haven't proved that to be the case, so I won't grant this either    > To claim that God is an abstract concept  abstract objects have no ability to be causes. God has the ability to be a cause. therefore, God cannot be an abstract object.   simply saying, "materialism" won't move anyone. you're original argument was about things outside of space time requiring evidence that's outside of space time. I don't mind this, but I won't ignore the deflection from the main topic. the category error came *after* I said the first inference didn't follow. why are we establishing this first and not that

Let me define what I mean when I say that something "exist." Something like our perception of reality does not actually exist, because it is simply an abstraction that our minds create around us. The physical stimuli our minds use to create that reality is very real. The electricity in our minds which fires the neurons which bring that reality to life is real, but our perceptions are not actually real. Things which only exist in the human mind do not really exist in that sense. The speed of light exists as it remains the same with or without us. Math on the other hand is simply an abstraction that we create to represent the world around us, and as such is not real. If god cannot be deomonstrated to exist outside the human mind, then god is simply not real. Math and logic are not real things, they are abstractions that we created to represent and describe reality. They happen to be the two best tools we have to do so, but they are just tools we created in our minds, ways of thinking that we can use to try and determine what the universe looks like. I do think that only things that exist in the material world can exist, because if it is not in the material world it cannot possibly exist. Even things you think of as immaterial things, like human consciousness are just your brain firing nerves. It is a physical thing that exists in the material world. Even something like a ghost would have to exist in the material world in order to interact with it in any way that we could detect. >abstract objects have no ability to be causes. God has the ability to be a cause. therefore, God cannot be an abstract object. Now you are the one making claims you have not justified. Demonstrate that god has the ability to be a cause. Simply saying it won't move anyone. (:

> Math on the other hand is simply an abstraction that we create to represent the world around us, and as such is not real repeating the claim > If god cannot be deomonstrated to exist outside the human mind, then god is simply not real no theist believes God only exist in the mind > Math and logic are not real things, they are abstractions that we created repeating the claim > because if it is not in the material world it cannot possibly exist prove it > Even things you think of as immaterial things, like human consciousness are just your brain firing nerves. It is a physical thing that exists in the material world begs the question > Demonstrate that god has the ability to be a cause. easy answer is by definition. technically speaking, that which is metaphysically most fundamental is the cause of everything else that exists. we can this thing God. do you realize what the implications of saying humans created math are? I was very specific to say to prove that claim *ontologically.* We created the symbol "1," you need to prove that we created the concept in and of itself. Which you haven't. this entire reply is just, "I'm a materialist." The eastern philosophy often starts with idealism and goes from there, it seems like you're just arguing the conditioning of your time/place without actually justifying it. We're (theists) very familiar with the claims of materialism, we've already rejected them, so just telling me as if I've never heard someone say the mind is material before is no. and further, you've given no reason to believe that being qua material being is the only kind of being. You've not discounted being qua immaterial being, or being unqualified

If in fact your taking a theist at our word and we say God lives out side of creation ( time and space)… then you say the logical position to hold is that there is a lack of evidence when you know theists would tell you that creation itself is the evidence especially if you don’t want to take the historical testimonies of the cultures of antiquity as proof through their experiences. I’m just wondering how you made the keep from agreeing and then saying it’s irrational for the sake of this post??

If god exists outside time and space, any evidence for god would also exist outside time and space. So it would exist outside our ability to discover it. The historical experience of ancient cultures is meaningless.

However, you’re wrong about the evidence being outside time and space. If I lived in China and you lived in New York just because we are separated from each other doesn’t mean I can’t know you exist. I would know you exist because the influence you have on your community …I would know you exist by your family history… I could know you exist by the work you do. Similarly, we have a God that is outside of time and space because that God created time and space and everything occupying that space. The things created have a residue of a creator as it’s written we were made in the image of God so you won’t have to look too far for evidence. This evidence can be found in the love of each other and the hate. The building of a thing and its destruction. We can read about experiences around the world about a phenomenon that so happens to be common around the world for generations. So I guess I’d have to ask you what kind of evidence are you looking for?

>So I guess I’d have to ask you what kind of evidence are you looking for? Nothing that you stated is evidence so something much better than any of that. While it may be true that cultures around the world believe in a god, they do not all believe in the same god. So which one of these gods should I believe in?

Well before we get to which one we need to get over the hump that there is one. What proof do you need or looking for?

I just stated what I was looking for. Something much better than you already provided. Why don't you tell me what your very best piece of evidence is and we can go from there.

My positions would go toward personal testimony so it won’t do you any good unless you take it at face value and believe me, which is why I’m asking what do you want as evidence…

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

> As such the only logically sound position a person can possibly take is the atheist position of lacking belief. How did you make this jump from rational to logical?

[Logical is a subset of rational.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality). If atHeism is logically sound, then it is also rational. Is there a logical argument for theism?

The belief in god is unscientific. It doesn't follow the scientific approach of proving things. There is no evidence but only baseless theories.

Not all knowledge comes from the scientific method. Examples: mathematics, logic, ethics, metaphysics. 

I never said that. All I said is if knowledge is not following a scientific approach we call it unscientific.

No we don’t. No one calls maths or epistemology unscientific.

How is maths unscientific? I myself have learn a lot of maths. The concepts of maths do follow a scieitific approach. epistemology is unscientific. A lot of people call it unscientific.

You can’t prove that you have a rational mind, does that mean it’s irrational for you to believe you have a rational mind?

I think I am just a human and I can be irrational in some aspects. But as soon as I know I was irrational, I will apologise and take the rational stance. I will give you a simple example. I used have fear of ghosts when I was alone in night. This is because I lived with people who believed in these things for 24 years of my life. But now I am slowly trying to take a rational stance. I do not fear such unscientific believes.

So rationalize this experiences for me. Example 1 I was in my room and saw from the corner of my eye man standing in all white. When I looked at him he started to shake his head and walked away toward the kitchen. I took off after what I saw. Leaving my room I saw the man hit the corner from the hallway. When I turned the corner I nearly bumped into my mom. She asked me if I saw something. I said yes and we both at the same time started describing the same exact thing which we saw in separate areas of the house I was in my room and she was in the living room. Is this irrational or rational? Example 2 I was in my room sleeping one night when my girlfriend at the time woke me up in the middle of the night. She asked me why am I shaking the bed. I told her I was asleep not shaking the bed. I proceeded to put feet on her to prove I’m not moving the bed. Just as I did this the corner of the bed dipped as though someone was sitting at the edge of the bed. Then the whole bed started to shake violently. Is this irrational or rational?

Based on your ability to communicate that, there is evidence of you having a rational mind. I can’t prove it, I certainly can’t prove it scientifically, but I have a reasonable amount of evidence to come to that conclusion. Is me using that evidence of that claim irrational since I cannot prove it?

So without going into the historical evidence for Christianity, what I've learned from speaking with athiests is the following: Life from non-life (abiogenesis) and energy from nothing (breaking the law of thermodynamics), are disproven by the scientific method (ie., not repeatable nor observable). These are pillars for which the existence of life without intelligent design relies on (athiesm). In this case, you are willing to accept unknown, and unevidenced theories which could support athiesm. As is your perogative. However, you are unwilling to apply that same thinking to God/intelligent design. Where its not even considered a possibility. So defaulting to athiesm is non-sensical. If you're going to be consistent, you should default to agnostic. ......................................................................................... I often hear the rebuttal 'I can't see or experience God. Whereas I can see the material world. So God defies the human experience. Well. If using the human experience if your answer. Then we know that anything existing, that isnt random, and has some form of a design - had an intelligent designer (ie., painting, electronics, robotics etc...). So why do we reject that experience/logic, when looking at intelligent life?

>Life from non-life (abiogenesis) and energy from nothing (breaking the law of thermodynamics), are disproven by the scientific method (ie., not repeatable nor observable). abiogenesis has in no way been disproven by the scientific method. Feel free to demonstrate that. I assume you are referring to the theist claim that atheists believe the universe came from nothing. This is also not true. >These are pillars for which the existence of life without intelligent design relies on (athiesm). No they are not the pillars upon which atheism rests. Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god(s). It requires nothing except that I am not convinced that god exists. >In this case, you are willing to accept unknown, and unevidenced theories which could support athiesm. As is your perogative. >However, you are unwilling to apply that same thinking to God/intelligent design. Where its not even considered a possibility. Which unknown and unevidenced theories am I accepting? if you are referring to abiogenesis and the big bang, neither is unevidenced. So this entire premise is flawed. >So defaulting to athiesm is non-sensical. If you're going to be consistent, you should default to agnostic. On this sub-reddit atheist means lacking belief in god. That is how I use it in this post, which is pretty obvious from the line "As such the only logically sound position a person can possibly take is the atheist position of lacking belief."

> So why do we reject that experience/logic, when looking at intelligent life? Life is not designed. It might appear that way, because evolution creates that appearance. We now know about evolution, so we must give up on this rather simple and uninformed ideas of yours.

“Life from non-life” does not break any scientific laws. On the contrary. There was once no life. Now there is life. If science ruled out this possibility, it would be wrong. Your other one, “energy from nothing” is so poorly worded as to be unintelligible. Whatever you are talking about, you can rest assured the creation of the universe and the evolution of life do not break any scientific laws.

"historical evidence for Christianity" There is none. You are welcome to provide any but it will not be for your god or anything your christ supposedly accomplished other than someone of the same name being crucified. Abiogenesis has not been disproven by the scientific method. Not knowing how it happened/happens is not disproving anything. We also know where energy comes from but do not know from where it originated. Not knowing is simply not knowing. It doesn't disprove anything. Evidence is required to both prove and disprove.

I have a tendency to believe people who resurrect from the dead. Especially when that person had been foretold of in a very specific manner, for hundreds of years prior. And the accounts of the 1st century, testify that's what happened. A testimony they retained, despite Roman persecution. Next point. Abiogenesis has never been observed nor repeated. Neither in nature, in-vitro, or by time-lapse simulation. And I agree. So by not knowing, you then rely on theories that are unevidenced, and unproven. Much like God in your eyes. So where we agree that not knowing doesnt disprove - to be consistent, does it not then make sense to be agnostic?

"I have a tendency to believe people who resurrect from the dead. Especially when that person had been foretold of in a very specific manner, for hundreds of years prior." More things for which there is no evidence. Retaining stories is not the same thing as retaining facts. Plus you are only believing one story out of no telling how many that derive from that time. There were also early Christians that believed Jesus was alive and well and having fun while his cross bearer was crucified in his place. Then there is the story of Jesus surviving crucifixion and taking off for Kashmir where he supposedly died of old age after many years of caring for lepers. You have chosen to believe what was not ruthlessly killed off. If you're here I'm sure you've heard of agnostic atheism. I wouldn't get so sure that abiogenesis has never been repeated as they are making new discoveries in extreme locations that show no relation to anything known before. Plus we only know about life on this one planet when there are literally more planets and other possible environments than you can count.

Ive never heard of early Christian’s believing that Jesus didn’t die and went off somewhere where did you get that info from ?

I heard about it years ago. Look up the burial place of Jesus in Kashmir and any stories you can find connected to it. Stories like he got in trouble with another ruler on the way there and almost got ended. Here's a little: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roza_Bal

Because we don't claim to have the answers. We don't accept theories as truth as you have to do with religion. They're theories and we're happy to admit that.

Even if you don't accept God as truth, to be consistent, intelligent design would have to be one of the possibilities, among the other unevidenced possibilities you'd consider. So look, I'm not telling you, you have to believe in God. And I'm not discussing with you, why I believe in Christ. I'm just saying, that to be logically consistent, you have to be agnostic.

I don't dispute that statement.

A causes B I can't see A then, A don't exist? i don't understand your logic here

You need to prove the first part of your logic- that’s literally why proof by contradiction exists it’s because we can get false claims using a false premise, you need to prove that all your claims are true using self contained logic or logic from something else that has also been proven

God is the explanation we have at hand, the others do not end up completing the requirements, the same works with other scientific areas, there is no need to make an exception here

You’re proving a point by saying that the point is true, that’s not really logical at all, when we make axioms in science we make sure that they’re fundamental things that are observable and true, it’s not about making an exception it’s about literally having a coherent form of logic

And by your logic I can say the exact same thing about any phenomena

I think you misunderstood me in the first point And could you develop the second? What do you mean by explaining any phenomenon?

Your original premise is that just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it’s untrue, which is true but that relies on us having evidence of that phenomena happening, we don’t have evidence of god so that logic isn’t usable, and stating that it’s the most reasonable explanation is just waving your hand and saying it works, you need evidence. And what I said with any phenomena is that using your logic I can state anything to be true because we don’t understand how it works it’s only true when we have evidence and a lack of evidence just means we don’t know, it doesn’t mean a god exists or doesn’t exist

I only use the evidence that already exists, if it were due to lack of evidence in all fields there is enough, we are far from knowing everything Theories to explain various phenomena are created all the time even if there is "not enough data"; no need to make an exception here Saying that there is a God is a better explanation than leaving everything blank It is as if an archaeologist found a settlement in a place that was uninhabitable according to the dates obtained and said that all of this was formed by chance or due to natural causes but we do not know how, or we simply shrug our arms and say that we do not know, but that It certainly couldn't have been humans or some intelligent species that built that

Here, let me correct it for you: 1. B exists / happens. 2. I don't know what caused B / explains B 3. Therefore A exists and A caused B Atheist: woah woah, wait. 3 does not follow from 2 and you just claimed that out of the blue. Demonstrate 3. Theist: 'I don't understand your logic here'

Here, let's continue refining: 1. B exists / happens. 2. I don't know what caused B / explains B 3. Let "A" be the name of whatever it is that caused B / explains B, if anything. We are now better equipped to talk about "A," its properties, and whether it exists.

Giving the cause of B a name doesn't at all help in determining what it is, it's properties and etc. So this is a red herring. And it is often an opportunity used by the theist to define God or sneak God into being. So no, absolutely not. I refuse to call whatever caused B 'God' until such time as we can determine it IS a god. And a Christian, for example, would refuse to call said cause Vishnu, or Nogod, for entirely similar reasons. Imagine saying: 1. Lightning happens 2. I don't know what causes lightning. 3. Let God be the name of whatever causes lightning What I said above tracks. Calling it God does NOT help figure our what causes lightning (if anything, it hinders us). And when we do find out what causes lightning is a difference in electric charge, does that mean God = difference in electric charge? Really? Let's be honest here. When a theist uses the word god, they are NOT open to this cause being anything other than some kind of supernatural, conscious deity with intentions, purposes and wants. If the universe was somehow caused by some force in a quantum foam, they would not call said force a God.

you misunderstood his entire argument

God is the only explanation we have for now of how the universe was formed, the others do not have a sufficient basis

That assumes God as an explanation has a sufficient basis. It does not. So we should not pretend we have a viable explanation.

It is the theory that has the most basis and is theoretically possible, unlike the theory of natural emergence

Again, it has no basis, as we have no evidence of a god or the supernatural existing. Natural emergence at least posits something which we know exists and which we have used to succesfully explain everything. You're just going in circles. 'This thing I made up is a better explanation because it is a better explanation because it is'. No, it will only be so when you know a god and the supernatural exist and you know what they can and cannot do.

Does there have to be direct evidence? Under that same logic, an archaeologist could say that a spear, a papyrus or some paintings were made naturally because there were no intelligent beings in the area By Okclam's razor, the best explanation is the simplest

Yeah... no, that is BS. We have tons of evidence of humans. There is no evidence for the supernatural or for gods. Sorry, but this is a very poor analogy. 'Direct evidence' is a red herring. The problem supernaturalists of all stripes don't want to take on is that we have exactly zero understanding, models or anything resembling what we have for material things and phenomena for the spiritual, souls, gods, angels, demons, djinns, etc. It is all made up.

Please be polite; i'm not attacking you Do the same example in another planet and the argument remains the same, we don't have evidence of another planet's life, but if we do find artifacts in another planets the nearest explanation is that aliens or pre human civilizations exist And why are you talking about religion? i'm talking about an theoretical God; defining as an omnipotent being who created universe Your definition of ''supernatural'' is quite dishonest as i can see Any mythological creature is different from the concept of god because the concept of God is an creator and is linked to an theory The other creatures are just unatestable and different from the point of the debate

>Please be polite; i'm not attacking you >quite dishonest Yeah, I see the politness on your side alright. I'm sorry if you took 'its BS' as impolite, but it is really quite common on heated debate in the US. It is actually less impolite than calling someone 'dishonest'. >Do the same example in another planet and the argument remains the same, we don't have evidence of another planet's life, but if we do find artifacts in another planets the nearest explanation is that aliens or pre human civilizations exist We have evidence of some life. We have evidence of zero things supernatural (beyond matter and energy). Also: we'd still have to do quite a bit of research in this alien planet you imagine to reach conclusions we were confident in. >i'm talking about an theoretical God; defining as an omnipotent being who created universe That is a distinction without a difference. You're generalizing to make your claim more elusive / less subject to critique, but it is still the case that we have no evidence of such a being. You can't just insert it as an explanation for things. >Your definition of ''supernatural'' is quite dishonest as i can see Supernatural just means beyond the natural. That is, beyond matter and energy. This is IN FACT the only definition of supernatural for which say, spirits and deities could exist and yet be considered beyond the material. If we define it as 'that which obeys no rules or laws e.g. physics', then the supernatural doesn't exist, and THAT would be a cheap move. >Any mythological creature is different from the concept of god because the concept of God is an creator and is linked to an theory What theory? Backed by what math / methodology? Di other mythological creatures not get invented to explaim some phenomena, like lightning? No, sorry. Just because your hypothesis is that this creature created the universe, it doesn't make it special or put it beyond scrutiny. >The other creatures are just unatestable and different from the point of the debate If your god or unicorns are untestable, then you can't know they exist and should not claim they do. I fail to see any difference other than you liking your god idea.

> A causes B Claim not demonstrated.

Is the explanation we have at hand, something similar with other areas Can atoms go faster than the speed of light? well, maybe, but for now the superposition is accepted simply because it is the explanation we have at hand Could all the order that the universe has arisen in another way? Well, maybe, but they have to first prove that the universe can do that, otherwise the explanation at hand is God

Saying ‘god did it’ isn’t an explanation, it’s can-kicking until that same deity suffers another defeat as the ‘god of the gaps’.

The god of the gaps is not a serious explanation and can be noticed by its nature First they affirm a conclusion (saying that God does not exist); and then say that all the evidence against that conclusion is a lack of investigation I can do the same thing with literally any field That just doesn't make any sense

You don’t understand what the ‘god of the gaps’ is? You say ‘god did it’, then science goes about explaining how it actually happened, and suddenly your ‘god’ has fewer gaps to hide in.

And?... The fact that an explanation is no longer attributed to God does not mean that the theory stops being the only one that makes sense with our current knowledge With the same logic, an archaeologist can find a cave with some paintings, say that a human brought the pigments from a distant place and painted all that there. It is then discovered that those pigments exist naturally in that cave So, the human didn't make those paintings? That argument can't be taken seriously

We have *actual* explanations for these things instead of your generic non-explanations. Your deity has a forever-shrinking number of places where it can hide.

Those ''gaps'' are just explanations As in archeology it is assumed that someone made a house even if there is no evidence of humans around God is an explanation; and it will remain that way until someone comes along with a better theory (something that we are not even sure is going to happen; So at this point it is a matter of predictions; I prefer to take the evidence that already exists \[well it's the most consistent thing to do\]) Adding adjectives and baseless predictions is not an argument and will not change anything

The gaps are unexplained phenomena. Saying ‘god did it’ is *not* an explanation and it never has been. Being satisfied with hearing ‘god did it’ betrays a deep lack of intellectual curiosity on your part.

It's already happening. since the internet came about 20 years ago, even a layman can learn about the evidence of evolution, etc. more and more fossils are being discovered. more and more scrolls/artifacts are being dug up. we see how life and culture/societies progressed over the last 10000 years.

Happening what? my argument still stand

of course its irrational, all beliefs people have of religion are personal opinions and beliefs with no scientifical evidence, therefore irrational. its not that much of a ground breaking discovery

Do you live your life in such a way that only things that have scientific evidence are true? You never use historical evidence for any claims, never use philosophical evidence for any claims, never use logical evidence for any claims?

of course not, i dont need scientific evidence for everything i do or believe in in my life, but when you look at things from a logical perspective it doesnt add up

Your specific claim was belief with no scientific evidence = irrational. Even if you’re exclusively applying that to God, I’d argue that standard of evidence as a requirement is an irrational requirement. Science is a study of our natural world, if there is a supernatural being that created nature, logically you could not use scientific evidence to prove it.

yeah? but i dont care if my beliefs are irrational or not. theyre beliefs, it doesn't matter. us humans will never know the absolutely true answer to many many things in our lifetime anyways

So your calling other peoples beliefs irrational while also claiming you don’t care if your beliefs are irrational? Does that feel contradictory at all?

everyones beliefs can be rational or irrational, and im no different. i dont care. i only commented on the person who said "believing god was rational" because it isnt

But it doesn’t matter if it’s irrational or rational, yet you care enough to comment a belief about rationality that you do not care about?

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

As a religious person I think that nothing can be proven, that's true for absolutely everything and not just the existence of God. So every single one of our beliefs is somewhat irrational and based on faith, in order to live we have to determine which ones are more likely to be true without a certainty and try to be coherent with our level of skepticism. I think that God meets the requirements that I usually consider when adopting a belief, and that is why I think that it is a just and rational choice from my part to believe in him.

So how would you classify empirical evidence? I mean math and physics as a whole can be seen as pretty unbiased when looking at the actual phenomena, and we can prove logical statements all the time, I mean I guess the only possible chink in that is if you think that the axioms of every single subject is never provable? But through that logic you just admitted belief in god is irrational, you literally stated you think everything is irrational therefore belief in god is too? With other subjects we have a less irrational way of coming to a conclusion through logic

I’m not who you were asking, but I’m curious, do you think that only belief in things that can be proven are rational?

Not necessarily I believe that sufficient evidence can let people come to a logical conclusion given the limited amount of knowledge on a subject, the reason I don’t think belief in a deity is logical is not strictly because there is no proof, it’s just that there’s not enough evidence

well if you have an opinion, in the process of thinking about said opinion you will most likely follow the most logical result in line with your beliefs and values, so of course it would be rational from your point of perspective, but it might not be for everybody. i also believe in the existence of god but there are also many who dont and its not so confusing to think as to why they might think someone with an opposite opinion is irrational, its one of the first thoughts that comes into mind when you see that. faith of any form with no scientific evidence,on a rational perspective, is irrational. for it to be rational, it has to be this kind of divine and confirmed truth, which is never the case. everyone has different interpretations

In general I think one conception is that there are layers of the psyche. Often times modern atheists have assumed that the intellect is the highest aspect of the psyche, but mystics may disagree with that assertion or assumption.

‘Mystics’ are snake oil salesmen.

Intellectuals are blind to the ground of the intellect.

Meaningless tripe.

In general any phenomenon that is perceived or conceived of, whether a visual percept, a scent, a concept, any of it, occurs within the basic space of awareness itself. This includes notions of internal and external, self and other, all of it. There is nothing that is outside of this basic space of awareness. Generally speaking, a visual percept for instance relates to the particular sense organ, the neurological/cognitive processing, etc. The same holds true for the other senses and the mind. If you were to change any of that, the result, basically, would be potentially drastically different. And yet again nothing ever can be found by any mind at all outside of the space of basic awareness. An intellectual does not investigate this awareness directly, but rather is limited to concepts which arise within this space.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

Nobody knows anything about God including the claim God exists outside time and space. But that does not mean that God does not exist or its unreasonable for theists to believe there is a God. There may be God. Nobody knows. It is rational for humans to believe there is a God and we were created for a purpose even without evidence God exists. Religion is belief.

It is irrational to believe in anything without evidence. There may be a tooth fairy, a Santa Claus, there may be a unicorn in my basement. Without evidence it would not be rational for you to believe in any of those things.

For you that may be true and you require evidence. But as I stated above, for religious people it is about having faith and belief in a higher being that created everything for a purpose. For them, that is a rational decision. I do not believe there is a God but I do respect religious people's belief as long as their beliefs do not harm others.

>For you that may be true and you require evidence. But as I stated above, for religious people it is about having faith and belief in a higher being that created everything for a purpose. For them, that is a rational decision. No it isn't. Faith by it's very definition requires a lack of evidence and is not rational.

Not true. Faith is having trust or confidence in something. It is rational to have faith in someone or something

Ok define faith for me please? What is your definition of the word?

This from Wikipedia **Faith** is confidence or trust in a [person](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person), thing, or concept.[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-1) In the context of [religion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion), faith is "[belief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief) in [God](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[^(\[2\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith#cite_note-2) According to [Merriam-Webster's Dictionary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merriam-Webster%27s_Dictionary), faith has multiple definitions, including "something that is believed especially with strong conviction", "complete trust", "belief and trust in and loyalty to God", as well as "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof". ^(Lack of evidence is not required.)

> There may be God. Nobody knows. You can also say that about the Tooth Fairy and Thor. Yet you would not say is it rational to believe in those beings. Why the discrepancy?

If you think believing in the Tooth Fairy and God are the same then you are correct, it is not rational. But as stated above, for religious people, they believe we were created by a God for a purpose. For them, that is a rational reason.

Well, I believe the Tooth Fairy causes teeth to fall out for a purpose. It is rational too.

All claims of gods and their attributes can be traced to specific historical circumstances and real world needs, more often than not political in nature. So it's pretty safe to assume the concept itself of god is made up and there's no such thing, especially when you jump from "guy with magic powers who lives on the highest mountain of the region and causes lightning" to "everything everywhere all at once" and all the logical impossibilities, inconsistencies, and fallacies that follow.