I asked a theist what proof they could provide me that gods or god exists. They responded by telling me they had tons of proof that god exists. My response was: Great. Please share it. Their response was that "I wouldn't believe any of it." I responded: Why do you believe it?
How would you have handled this differently.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@MCD
I don't think I would have done anything differently. I mean, what else could you do? You were honest and direct. Apparently, they were either lying about their proof or not confident about it.
Happens on these forums all the time. There is no answer...except "magic"
I asked a Mormon missionary that same question. Why do you believe this crap? His only answer was to grasp his left tit and say "It's all in here." Maybe it has something to do with the cardiovascular system or breast-feeding . It's a mystery to me.
I think the 'design' argument is the strongest proof for God. But, yes, I know that evolution tries to explain design, but there are too many gaping holes in the theory to give it any credence. The only reason that it's still being held up is without it there just is no hope for atheism.
@ROYISM: "I think the 'design' argument is the strongest proof for God."
I agree. But it's still a ludicrously weak and fallacious argument that proves nothing at all.
@ Algebe
Can you tell me why it is ludicrously weak?
@ROYISM: "Can you tell me why it is ludicrously weak?"
Look at your own human body. Would you have designed it like that? In your picture you're wearing glasses. That's because your eyes are fragile, imperfect organs prone to maladjustment and damage. Samsung could have designed and manufactured a better eye for you.
Look at the history of life on this planet. Over 99% of all species are extinct. Why would a designer make so many mistakes? All those species, perhaps 5 billion of them, went extinct because their environments changed. But isn't the environment also supposed to be designed?
Perhaps you're talking about the apparently perfect balance of forces that allow us to exist in this universe? The belief that a creator adjusted those forces specifically so that we could exist is the ultimate arrogance. We are not the purpose of the universe. We are part of it. If the universe was slightly different, we wouldn't be here talking about it. That's all.
"I think the 'design' argument is the strongest proof for God." : If you only have an argument you have no proof, strong or otherwise. Its a fallacious statement.
Your second sentence is an assertion without proof. It can therefore be dismissed without proof (Hitchens Razor). Citations and proof of alleged "gaps" in the theory are needed to maintain this statement.
Your final statement is a conclusion ( I paraphrase) that "without evolution atheism would fall". Again a fallacious argument. There is no reason to assume that evolution and atheism are interdependent therefore your first part of the statement fails, the last part is a non sequitur.
Your final words " No hope for atheism" merely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of atheism. Atheism cannot "fall" or fail.
Atheism can only be contradicted by the direct evidence of a deity's existence. At which point every atheist would cease to be an atheist and commence to be a contrarian if they persisted in denying the existence of the deity.
So, in conclusion, word soup saying nothing. Or an excellent satire on the average theist visi5ting this forum.
Royism, you wrote, “I know that evolution tries to explain design,”
No, it does not. That sentence indicates either ignorance or slipperiness.
@cybeLN
Evolution does try to explain design... Dawkins says that life appears designed, and with 'evolution' he explains why it has not been designed. That's what i mean.
Evolution is a process of transformation, not an act of creation. As Lavoisier said "In nature nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed."
A true act of creation would require something to be created from nothing, which is absurd. Your "proof" for god amounts to saying "Because there is something, it must have been created from nothing by a creator."
@ROYISM: "Dawkins says that life appears designed"
What's the context? When did he say that?
The "design argument", a.k.a. the fallacy of argument from ignorance, is not proof of anything.
Evolutionary mechanisms (reproduction, mutation, selection) have been effectively applied to "design" things. Like circuits, components, software. One example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
We are not omniscient, facts must be discovered, and the incompleteness of theories is expected as part of that process. Yet, the big picture is that facts from several branches of Science converge to evolution happening and having happened in the history of live on Earth.
Evolution is based on facts, and as such it is acknowledged and investigated by adherents of all religions, theistic or otherwise. It's the holy books litteralists that can't admit that the tales in their holy books (like the creation myths) are not accurate, verbatim descriptions of what really happened, that do all they can to discredit any scientific theory that tell them it is not so.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
You would need to supply those 'gaps' in evolution for your comment to be somewhat serious. Otherwise, it is an unfounded opinion. Besides, Evolution theory has nothing to do with atheism. You can accept evolution and still be a theist.
@Royism
DNA PROVES that evolution is a fact. There are no gaping holes as you say. I have no idea where or how you were "educated" but it wasn't very good.
If evolution was proven false, that would not prove there is a god. It would just prove that the theory was untenable.
The burden of proof theists require to support their extraordinary claim still exists.
A valid scientific theory must be able to match observations, which evolution does incredibly well. Additionally, it is firmly supported by other distinct disciplines such as genetics, biology, and geology.
And the Christian logic goes round and round, and the silly stories go up and down
There captive on a carousel of shine, They can't return we can only look behind
From where thet came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
@ Cogno
psssst, says Islam on the profile *winks* slowly hides behind pot plant.....
I would have asked them how the "evidence" could qualify as proof if I would not believe it.
In my experiences it seems that most theists of any variety have no care for whether or not they have proof. For them, the very fact that they believe is enough for them to think the aforementioned belief is vindicated and justified, and close their minds to all arguments to the contrary. This does not apply in all cases, though.