Give me one reason to believe there is not a god

give me one reason to believe there is not a god

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc
youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38
youtube.com/watch?v=S2sK_EOKb1Q
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because it's the default position until such time as sufficient evidence has been provided for the existence of one.

Why would a benevolent God allow leftists to exist?

beliefs are by definition without reason. you create reasons to justify them. either you see with your eyes, or you see with your lies.

Why do you believe in God by default. You wouldn't say "Give me one reason to believe ghosts don't exist."

If repetitive digits god is real

How can atheism be a position if its the lack of a position?

Unless you're saying atheism is more than just the lack of belief in God but is the denial of the existence of God then you're just making an argument from ignorance.

ANOTHER thread.

A benevolent god would smite the jew

youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc

youtube.com/watch?v=qs26qv6C-38
dont worry I didn't watch yours either

Ow look another 1 post by this ID "le disprove God" thread. Totally haven't seen that before.
Reminder that sage.

oh look another lolbertarian flag

>receives a link from an expert in theology and years of experience to explain a misunderstanding
>fuck watching that shit look at me im an aussie hur durr

Give me one good reason to have an opinion unless there is sufficient evidence one way or the other. I have more important shit to worry about.

I'm saying none of those things. Sidebar on semantics: "Atheism" is a meaningless term. We don't define other sets of things by their non-belonging to a group; we don't for example define people as types of butchers and non-butchers, so why do we feel the need to define people as types of theists and then atheists?

The default position on any proposition is non-acceptance until the proposition is proven to be true. This is not an argument from ignorance, this is how epistemology in it's most fundamental terms works. I'm saying that this applies to the proposition of the existence of a god or gods as well.

mislick

>expert in theology
That's like saying "expert in Harry Potter lore".

There probably is but it's sure as fuck not the retarded jewish one can't keep his story straight for more than one book

God is probably some neet programmer sitting over a simulation or some shit. Almighty to us but just as powerless outside.

You're saying atheism is the default position which implies atheism is a position. Literally impossible to be the default position if not even a position at all in the first place.

We can define a negative just fine. Don't tell me you're one of those dupes who fell for the "we can't prove a negative" meme as well. First we have to define theism properly, then we can affirm or negate from there. Fedoras are just walking around with their own definition of God without realizing they don't even define the term. The affirmative defines it, not the negative.

I think what you're trying to get at is suspension of judgment and this is neither affirmation or negation, its just a lack of belief. But that's a lack of a position, hence impossible to be a default of anything.

But if you want to say we must default to suspension of judgment in lack of proof what reasons do you have to believe that? And how do you avoid radical skepticism?
>youtube.com/watch?v=S2sK_EOKb1Q

She's too perfect to not have been created.

this

“We often find ourselves moved to act in defiance of our own best interests solely because that absolute horizon commands our unremitting attention and compliance, and makes us submit ourselves to contingencies we would otherwise avoid. We may, for example, force ourselves to hear and to accept an unwelcome truth, not because it pleases or attracts us, but because we are driven by a deeper devotion to truth as such. We can be compelled by con- science to undertake extraordinary labors in the service of others, even perfect strangers, often contrary to every sound practical consideration, and occasionally at great personal cost, all on account of an always deeper longing for a transcendent goodness whose demands are irresistible and indifferent to our frailties. We can be drawn toward objects of aesthetic contemplation that possess no practical value for us—that cannot nourish, protect, strengthen, or enrich us—because we delight in a certain transcendent splendor that shines through them.”

Source: Hart, David Bentley (2013). The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss. Yale University Press. p. 245-246

>You're saying atheism is the default position which implies atheism is a position

I said no such thing. I gave my opinion that "atheist" is a meaningless term. I'm not saying god(s) don't exist as a result of us not being able to prove the existence of them. I'm saying that until it's proven that a god exists, you can't assert it as true. These are different things entirely.

Saying a thing doesn't exist is different from saying "we haven't established whether this thing exists or not". I am saying that the latter is the default in any debate.

The problem with your logic is the usage of the word "position". Atheism simply cannot not be classified in the same manner that separate religions are. If atheism is any sort of a position it is a super-position with the only other super-position being that the ARE gods and not any specific set of gods. The original argument still stands, as long as there isn't any clear cut evidence of supernatural powers than we must all accept that there is no god until proven otherwise.

free will

>Because it's the default position
Dude, if you have to distort your own words to make a defense for yourself then deep down you probably know your own case is bad...

>I'm saying that until it's proven that a god exists, you can't assert it as true.

You're not even using the word "God" properly. Look how you use a lower case g. Look how your language implies God is a being of sorts that may or may not exist. You're talking about God like there's a list of entities that exist like:

cars
trees
people
boats
oh and there's God

No, that's not how this works. God is not on the list. God creates the list.
>youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc

Her gross Slavic face

delete