When analyzed enough it seems this is what all theists arguments come down to...
When analyzed Atheist's argument can be reduced to 'God doesn't exist because there is no evidence to support that.'
Can anyone refute this?
2007-01-27 10:31:03 · 21 answers · asked by Poo 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
If so, give an argument that isn't reduced to that using evidence with a source supporting the evidence.
2007-01-27 10:32:39 · update #1
One cannot prove a negative; therefore the responsibility falls to proving that something exists. This why the legal system advocates innocent until proven guilty...
Therefore, christians must believe one is guilty "sinful" until saved. It all just boggles the mind!
2007-01-27 10:34:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
If there isn't any God, then Cho Seung-Hui risked no longer something in murdering 33 people. If there's a God, then he will nonetheless face the main suitable judgement. in case you incredibly have faith that there isn't any God and that this existence is all there is, then what keeps you from doing despite the heck you prefer to do? what's the worst punishment you would be able to desire to stand? death penalty? Why might you care? you're basically going to stop to exist, top? That to me is the evidence which you have faith God exists. you purely refuse to nicely known what you comprehend deep interior. you're a actual tuff guy, huh?
2016-11-01 10:56:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with everyone's answer that pertained to faith. God didn't say scientifically how he created everything or how long it took (how old the earth/universe is). All he truly says is HE did it and that's the main thing we need to know. If he didn't go into such details then he felt it wasn't needed for us to know I guess. Like another reply said, our minds can't comprehend the complexities of this universe. Neither can we it's creator or how he did it or when...within these subjects huge arguments brew...creation vs evolution...let it go. God said he created the universe and all within it, then that's all we need to know. One day we'll find out how and when. We shouldn't argue with each other or try to disprove what God did. If you don't want to believe what God said he did, then don't. God gives us that free will to choose. God doesn't force us to do anything really, its the people in this twisted world that force us to do or believe things. If a person has been giving the information needed to full heartily and truly make that decision, then let God decide what that person's future is not us. Peacefully give a person that information out of God's love, and let them make their OWN decision. If you want some type of proof you can see, then truly open your eyes and go for a "nature walk" and see all the amazing, beautiful things in this world. From the small complex bugs, the birds in the air, to a sunset or sunrise, the moon and stars at night...really soak in the awsome beauty of this world and tell me theres not a God.
2007-01-27 11:21:46 · answer #3 · answered by stang306gt 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I know he exists because of the Creation I see around me, I'm sorry but I just don't think the explosion of a star (big bang) resulted in the formation of the earth..... why isn't the earth floating away into space like some other celestial bodies? Why are we at a perfect distance from the sun? Why is there a sun with sufficient heat to keep life on earth? Why are planets round/ sperical ( have you ever seen something explode?)
Why are there wicked spirit forces? ( which I know for a fact exists, my neighbour was attacked by a demon..... her hair colour became red (not like hair dye... like blood) which I saw... After it left her house it was normal again). Would that mean that there are only wicked spirits? Unlikely....... Anyways the world will soon know the true answer to that question.
2007-01-27 10:47:35 · answer #4 · answered by Other sheep 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Saying "God exists because god exists" is not a good argument. If it gets to that point, then the argument is done. Though I'm not sure any side actually wins the argument... cause they continue to argue.
No. I can't refute that. There's really no reason to. I don't disregards peoples personal experiences simply because they do not match mine.
2007-01-27 11:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by Kithy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
saying 'God doesn't exist because there's no evidence to support that' is just as weak an arguement. there's plenty of evidence.
both theism and atheism have evidence, and both deny eachother's evidence. A theist would say "there is no proof that evolution happened" and an atheist would say "there is no proof that God exists". Proof is technically non-existant, as proof by people's standards is only the speculated evidence that people accept as fact.
not everybody will accept a theory, no matter how praised or argued.
2007-01-27 10:42:42 · answer #6 · answered by Hey, Ray 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's not good enough for me. That's one of the reasons that I'm an atheist.
Using that same logic, you could say, "The universe doesn't need a creator. The universe exists because the universe exists. The human mind cannot begin to comprehend the complexities of the universe."
That's the same line of logic that Christians use towards God, but I replaced "God" with "universe." It's a ridiculous mindset. I don't know where everything came from, but I'm ok with that. I don't need to start making up fairy tales of things to help me sleep at night.
2007-01-27 10:34:17 · answer #7 · answered by robtheman 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Well, you could say that God exists because there is no evidence to disprove that. There is no point in arguing using logic whether God exists or not. It's just futile... You either believe or not. I am a believer, not a Christian, though...
2007-01-27 10:43:12 · answer #8 · answered by Alexander K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The One True God exists because He exists in the spiritual vision of His believers.
God does not exist because the unbelievers have denied their God-given spiritual vision.
I don't need to refute man's arguments.
2007-01-27 10:43:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would argue the second one. More accurate would be "The lack of evidence for existence suggests a high probability of non-existence". You cannot actually prove something does not exist.
2007-01-27 10:35:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋