God is benevolent who rewards believers and damns nonbelievers. A god such as this would want everyone to believe. Since this god is also omnipotent it would be an easy task for him to convince nonbelievers to believe. It then follows that if this god exists, there would not be any nonbelievers. However, there exists MANY nonbelievers in the World. Therefore, this god does not exist. This constitutes evidence of that this god does not exist. ps. dark & chas, you guys getting the hang of all this how to make a rational argument stuff?
Ockam's Razor! Ever hear of it? A nice little rule to follow and it makes perfect sense. Don't postulate the existence of anything more than what's needed for the explanation. The simplest model is the most likely. Complex explanations of the universe are less likely than simpler ones. Explanations that invoke a god are more complex than "natualistic" scenarios, therefore scenarios involving a god are much less likely than those that do not. Therefore, a belief in this god is not justified. This constitutes evidence that this god does not exist. do you guys think you could possibly hopefully argue your points in this way? (more coherently ie.)
having read this thread with much interest, it seems to me that the conclusion is really something else. something beyond the age old debate concerning the existence of god; and if god exists does he concern himself with the affairs of men ? having given MUCH thought to this issue, it appears that some people are simply wired to believe in a higher power, and some people are not. there is equal brain power and intellect on both sides of the debate, so why do some people believe and some do not ?? apparently there is something deep inside the innerworkings of the mind that "predestines" belief or non belief. even the bible states something like this when it says, and i will take liberty when qouting since i am not sure of the exact qoute, " i (god) am foolishness for those who are not touched by the spirit". or something like that. therefore, in my opinion, the debate itself is meaningless since belief and non belief are internalized by the person and no amount of debate or winning of an argument can change one's mind if they are not wired to believe or vice versa. just my thoughts, thanks for some fascinating reading. best, surf
what do you mean by wired? a genetic predisposition for belief in superstition? i believe they already have a name for that it's called ...DUMB.
pussy, i don't know what it is that causes some people to believe and some people not to. however, i do know that not all those who believe are "dumb"== your words. and tat is a fact putty cat. best, surf
i was just making a little joke, surf. what i really meant is that somewhere along the way they jumped the rational ship for whatever personal reasons. the point is they needed it(god) and they "found" it.
I think man would rather be a machine or an animal because he's afraid of God or mad at Him or both; and by insisting that he is less than what he really is, he can avoid facing God (temporarily) <i>and</i> justify behaving like an animal. Sad, really.