Free and Open Challenge to Atheists

[itsnobody]

itsnobody i agree....but then we have to get to why you believe the way you do.

By what standard and what evidence did you come to your belief? If science and logic did not play a roll in that, what did?

And argument is 100% based in logic and reasoning that have scientific basis. So if you don't accept scientific evidence or logic as valid rebuttals....why are you wanting to argue? Argument is dependent on these things.

Well I came to my beliefs through my own observations and experiences. Why would it matter why I believe something? You're just using the psychology argument I already refuted in the previous posts.

Based on what I've observed I think I can prove that multiple time-lines exist, and I'm 100% certain it will be proven in the future once they become empirically testable. Of course then time-travel will be extremely easy then.

It seems to me that proving an afterlife exists would be far easier than proving that personal God exists. For instance if someone came up with a machine that views the conscious experience of a person they could easily prove an afterlife with no problem. Once an afterlife becomes empirically testable it will also be scientifically proven in the future. But one thing about an afterlife that I haven't figured out is, do hellish worlds exist as other time-lines, other universes, other planets, or as less dense worlds within this time-line. But I definitely know with 100% certainty that hellish worlds exist.

Of course in the future once God is scientifically proven to exist, atheists will still exist but in a different form, not known as "atheists" but rather "impersonalists", they will say that which is unborn, all-existing, quite literally the light of lights (the source of light), the ground of all existence is simply impersonal, like an impersonal force.

 

[itsnobody]

You are setting up a system where no evidence = evidence, because evidence is confined to the natural realm, and not the supernatural realm.

So how did you come to your theistic belief if evidence in the natural realm is not convincing to you?

I never said no evidence = evidence, it's just a straw man

I said no evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis does not tells us whether the hypothesis is true or false. Is a hypothesis is empirically untestable this means that regardless of the hypothesis is true or false there cannot be evidence.

Every single thing in modern science proven true today lacked evidence and was unproven during the time period that it was empirically untestable

So according to the atheists logic of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" we should expect that Newtonian gravity, General Relativity, atoms, quarks, black holes, electrons, and everything else proven to exist today to be non-existent since they ALL lacked evidence and were unproven during the time period that they were empirically untestable

 

[hazek]

I never said no evidence = evidence, it's just a straw man

I said no evidence for an empirically untestable hypothesis does not indicate that the hypothesis is true or false

Every single thing in modern science proven true today lacked evidence and was unproven during the time period that it was empirically untestable

So according to the atheists logic of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" we should expect that Newtonian gravity, General Relativity, atoms, quarks, black holes, electrons, and everything else proven to exist today to be non-existent since they ALL lacked evidence and were unproven during the time period that they were empirically untestable

Wrong. Not having the technology to prove something is not the same as unprovable. None of those theories or any scientific theory is empirically unprovable. In fact every scientific theory's ultimate goal is to be empirically proven.

It's a bit frightening to see how far removed you are from reality and logic.

 

[itsnobody]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, it tells us absolutely nothing, except.. wait for it.. that it's not a fact. You said it yourself: Therefor god's existence is not a fact.

Actually, it doesn't tell us whether it's a fact or not. It doesn't tell us that it isn't a fact, it tells us that we don't know whether or not it is true or false.

Just because science can't yet answer all the questions about our origin of existence doesn't mean I have to jump on board on the most popular hypothesis. Actually I'm going to be especially reluctant with one that's often abused by power seeking individuals for their own political and materialistic reasons.

You can stand on your head but you can't make god's existence a fact. Just like you can stand on your head and you can't argue with my logic and reasoning when I'm not willing to believe something that isn't a fact. Btw, I'm wondering, how come you aren't asking me if I can list any logical reasons to not believe in the easter bunny or any other fairy tale for that matter?

What are you talking about? I didn't say "just because we don't know certain things, God exists" I said science makes no claims regarding any empirically untestable hypotheses so you're just using a straw man.

Btw for a long time it was a hypothesis that the Earth was the center of our solar system. Guess what, the empirical evidence proved it was wrong and showed us what the real fact of reality is and the quality of our lives improved. I rather not repeat the same mistake as people did in our history.

Your analogy fails because a heliocentric model is empirically testable where as God is not. What do you mean by "make the same mistake"?

According to you since there was a lack of evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun for thousands of years this should mean that we should've believed in the geocentric model, after all our sensory perception tells us that the Sun moves around the Earth doesn't it?

 

[itsnobody]

Btw I love how you want your own little rules about the verb "to exist".

It just shows how you fail with all of your arguments at that very spot. Stefan Molyneux has a really nice video about what you're doing. I'm so sorry, but the second you utter the word "exists" you step in the arena of the scientific method and proof and your non-sequitur argument falls apart.

Instead of giving a reason as how my argument falls apart you just say so, what a great argument, lol

How does the argument fall apart? Can you try to give an actual reason or explanation in your arguments?

 

[Trent]

Try to stay with me for one second please itsnobody.

If you came to your theistic belief through your own observations and experiences then you are using natural evidence to explain your belief in the supernatural im afraid.

 

[itsnobody]

Wrong. Not having the technology to prove something is not the same as unprovable. None of those theories or any scientific theory is empirically unprovable. In fact every scientific theory's ultimate goal is to be empirically proven.

It's a bit frightening to see how far removed you are from reality and logic.

What? Not having the technology to prove something makes it empirically untestable which makes it unprovable at this present time.

What do you mean by it doesn't make it unprovable?

If no one finds a way to test the string theory, then the string theory is unprovable, what do you mean by it doesn't make it unprovable?

Once again, instead of using reasoning and explanations in your arguments, you just make statements, "I say that makes it unprovable".

The only thing frightening is seeing how broken your arguments and logic are, and how you desperately try to make it seem as if you refuted an argument by throwing ad hominems at me..."I know if I say he's removed from reality people might think I refuted an argument"

So what's your reasoning as to how it doesn't it make it unprovable?

 

[Trent]

Why do you believe in a theistic loving god if natural evidence is not convincing?

The only way to be a theist is to believe that god does good things in your life which can be seen and observed in the natural world.

Please respond to this. Thanks in advance.

 

[itsnobody]

Try to stay with me for one second please itsnobody.

If you came to your theistic belief through your own observations and experiences then you are using natural evidence to explain your belief in the supernatural im afraid.

It's just a straw man. I have no beliefs in the "supernatural".

Heavens, hells, an afterlife, and even God can all be labeled as natural.

What do you mean when you say "im afraid"

Historically Theists had all been naturalists.

 

[itsnobody]

Please respond to this. Thanks in advance.

I don't understand what a "loving God" has to do with this.

The Earth had always been defined as an evil, terrible place full of suffering where pain exists, so experiencing pain and suffering is perfectly compatible with God existing.

So what do you mean when yo say "the only way to be a theist is to believe that god does good things in your life which can be seen and observed in the natural world"

Your argument just doesn't make any sense, no sense at all.

 

[hazek]

What are you talking about? I didn't say "just because we don't know certain things, God exists" I said science makes no claims regarding any empirically untestable hypotheses so you're just using a straw man.

There is no such thing as empirically untestable hypothesis. In fact it's an oxymoron.

hy·poth·e·sis (h-pth-ss)
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

You are beyond help if you can't even use the words right.

 

[hazek]

What? Not having the technology to prove something makes it empirically untestable which makes it unprovable at this present time.

What do you mean by it doesn't make it unprovable?

If no one finds a way to test the string theory, then the string theory is unprovable, what do you mean by it doesn't make it unprovable?

I had no idea what the string theory is, so I looked it up on wiki. I suggest you head over there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

Please pay attention under the section that starts with:

Predictability and Testability

Unsolved problems in physics
Is there a string theory vacuum which exactly describes everything in our universe? Is it uniquely determined by low energy data?
Finding a way to confirm string theory with our current technology is a major challenge.

MEANING: it's not unprovable or untestable, we just don't know how to do it yet, although they are already thinking about what sort of results they need to prove it meaning they are trying


You on the other hand say that god's existence is unprovable and you want to be done with that.

Guess what, if he exists it must be provable. It is the definition of the verb "to exist". And as soon as you use that verb in your argument, it is no longer my job to give you logical reasons to convince you not to believe in your theory, but it is your job to gather evidence and try and find a way to prove your theory of god's existence. And if you make a statement that your theory is unprovable, then it's not a theory at all, it's merely a belief in a fairy tale.


Basically, at present time god's existence is not fact. And you can try and stand on your head and scream "lack of evidence != proof of non existence" all you want because that's not what "at present time god's existence is not fact" means. If you don't understand what a fact is, look it up. And my logical and reasonable argument is that I'm not willing to believe your theory unless you can show me some facts that support it. Which you as you admitted, you can't. And that's all the logic and reasoning that I need.

p.s.: your screaming of ad hominems against you is really cute, while all I'm trying to do is show you how you are evading the facts of reality.

 

[squarepusher]

I challenge any atheist to give me even one logical atheistic argument or logical reason for being an atheist.

I've seen lots of atheistic arguments and have never seen even one logical argument from atheists. I declare that there is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

Everything is free and open, as soon as you provide your argument I'll just explain how it's illogical.

There is no logical reason to be an atheist.

 

[hazek]

hahahahahahahaahhahahhahahahhahahaha

well done sir, well done.

 

[Becker]

yeah, seriously!!

 

[beaven]

One should be required to prove that they exist before we take their word on matters that God does not exist. After all, if one does not exist, they are just a hypocrite for claiming someone else doesn't exist.

 

[billjones]

One should be required to prove that they exist before we take their word on matters that God does not exist. After all, if one does not exist, they are just a hypocrite for claiming someone else doesn't exist.

Most atheists don't claim that a god doesn't exist, just saying.

 

[hazek]

Most atheists don't claim that a god doesn't exist, just saying.

Yes we do. Most religious people fail to understand the verb "to exist" in our reality.

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).


There is no doubt that god does not exist in our shared reality. Anyone that want's to claim he does, should use the scientific method and prove it.

 

[billjones]

Yes we do. Most religious people fail to understand the verb "to exist" in our reality.

ex·ist (g-zst)
intr.v. ex·ist·ed, ex·ist·ing, ex·ists
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).


There is no doubt that god does not exist in our shared reality. Anyone that want's to claim he does, should use the scientific method and prove it.

You are in the minority of atheists, then. At least from my experience.

btw, I wasn't disputing the meaning of to "exist".

 

[hazek]

You are in the minority of atheists, then. At least from my experience.

If you're a theist I have a sneaky suspicion your experience was altered by those atheist trying to remain cordial with you playing down their beliefs. Of course this is just a wild assumption and could be completely off especially if you aren't a theist.

Also I think philosophically speaking I bet a lot of atheist haven't really thought how to exactly approach this issue through. They just know they don't believe what religion teaches them but often don't research further than that. I mean I hope it's not too far fetched to believe someone would just go "that's bs" when confronted with religion and not dwell on what really is the answer is it?