Belief is Opinion

[Drew_2013]

Hello all,

Was just reading the first few posts in the thread 'So why should I be an atheist' and wanted to respond to a couple of posts.

The reason why the vast majority of atheists do not believe in the existence of a god (or gods) is that the case for existence of a god has not met its burden of proof.

What burden of proof does a belief require? I would think the burden of proof in a belief about the truth of something would simply be more evidence in favor of than against such a belief.

Atheism is the response to theist's claim that a god exists. We are not convinced by any of the arguments made for the existence of a god for us to justify belief that one does exist.

I personally don't say as a matter of fact God exists...I say its my opinion we owe our existence of the universe and humans to God. The only burden I have to form an opinion is a simple preponderance of evidence more than against. In regards to the theist atheist debate, atheism isn't in a vacuum. Neither the theist or the atheist denies the universe and sentient humans exist, the disagreement is over whether a Creator caused such or it was the result of a mindless process that fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

[dogpet]

The creator hypothesis only moves the mindless process further down the chain & is therefore redundant. Sorry to piss on your chips.

[Kinich Ahau]

Which God do you believe by the way? Some here think that leprechauns played a hand in our creation.

[Davin]

Drew_2013 wrote

What burden of proof does a belief require?

None. Unless you're going to go around telling other people they need to also hold that belief, then you have a burden of proof.

Drew_2013 wrote

I would think the burden of proof in a belief about the truth of something would simply be more evidence in favor of than against such a belief.

That is not what a burden of proof is. The burden of proof is the reasonable responsibility of someone claiming something to back up their their claims. The reason it's useful, is that any idiot can claim something, but we don't take anything seriously until the claim can be backed up with evidence.

Drew_2013 wrote

I personally don't say as a matter of fact God exists...I say its my opinion we owe our existence of the universe and humans to God.

As long as you keep it to your self, then you have no burden of proof, but since you didn't, now you have the burden to back up your opinion.

Drew_2013 wrote

The only burden I have to form an opinion is a simple preponderance of evidence more than against.

Nope. There are no facts that point directly to a creator god.

Drew_2013 wrote

In regards to the theist atheist debate, atheism isn't in a vacuum.

That's right, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Drew_2013 wrote

Neither the theist or the atheist denies the universe and sentient humans exist, the disagreement is over whether a Creator caused such or it was the result of a mindless process that fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

False dichotomy. The disagreement is that theists are going around telling other people that a god did it and atheists are asking them to honor their burden of proof.

[Drew_2013]

The creator hypothesis only moves the mindless process further down the chain & is therefore redundant. Sorry to piss on your chips.

My chips are fine thank you. You’ll have to explain this statement…


Which God do you believe by the way? Some here think that leprechauns played a hand in our creation.

No particular God, I just believe we owe our existence to a Creator as opposed to the belief we owe our existence to natural causes that didn’t plan or intend our existence or the existence of the universe for that matter.


None. Unless you're going to go around telling other people they need to also hold that belief, then you have a burden of proof.

I agree, if I’m going to share my opinion in this forum I should justify such an opinion. However I’m not on the hook to prove it conclusively unless I state it’s a fact God exists and created the universe.



That is not what a burden of proof is. The burden of proof is the reasonable responsibility of someone claiming something to back up their their claims. The reason it's useful, is that any idiot can claim something, but we don't take anything seriously until the claim can be backed up with evidence.

Fair enough. If I opined that Joe Montana was the greatest QB ever, I would provide stats that back up that claim. That wouldn’t prove it to be true and it may not persuade you it is true but I would fulfil my burden to support an opinion.



Nope. There are no facts that point directly to a creator god.

Evidence is simply facts that comport with or make a belief more likely than not. In many cases circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone with a higher burden of evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn’t necessary to provide direct evidence. For instance I believe in the existence of black holes even though only indirect evidence has been established.



That's right, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I wouldn’t speak for all atheists some atheists believe there is sufficient evidence to render the opinion God doesn’t exist. Some atheists feel exactly the same way but prefer to say they lack belief because they believe it relieves them of any burden of evidence.

[Davin]

Drew_2013 wrote

None. Unless you're going to go around telling other people they need to also hold that belief, then you have a burden of proof.

I agree, if I’m going to share my opinion in this forum I should justify such an opinion. However I’m not on the hook to prove it conclusively unless I state it’s a fact God exists and created the universe.

If you're going to go around advocating for something, then the burden of proof is on you.

Drew_2013 wrote

That is not what a burden of proof is. The burden of proof is the reasonable responsibility of someone claiming something to back up their their claims. The reason it's useful, is that any idiot can claim something, but we don't take anything seriously until the claim can be backed up with evidence.

Fair enough. If I opined that Joe Montana was the greatest QB ever, I would provide stats that back up that claim. That wouldn’t prove it to be true and it may not persuade you it is true but I would fulfil my burden to support an opinion.

Sure, to support an opinion that you keep to yourself.

Drew_2013 wrote

Nope. There are no facts that point directly to a creator god.

Evidence is simply facts that comport with or make a belief more likely than not. In many cases circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone with a higher burden of evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. It isn’t necessary to provide direct evidence. For instance I believe in the existence of black holes even though only indirect evidence has been established.

We're not talking about a court of law. And no, circumstantial is not enough to criminally convict anyone, it either takes some hard evidence or a bad jury. The thing about circumstantial evidence, is that it doesn't satisfy reasonable doubts. While it is true that there doesn't need to be direct evidence, the evidence does need to directly point to something. For instance, the light bending around something that we can't see, is not direct evidence of the black hole, but since it would take something extremely massive to bend the light in such a way, the evidence points directly to something with a large mass that is bending the light which directly points to a black hole.

Drew_2013 wrote

That's right, it's simply the lack of belief in a god or gods.

I wouldn’t speak for all atheists some atheists believe there is sufficient evidence to render the opinion God doesn’t exist. Some atheists feel exactly the same way but prefer to say they lack belief because they believe it relieves them of any burden of evidence.

I don't speak for all atheists, I just know what the term means. You are attaching meaning onto a term where it doesn't belong. It doesn't matter if some atheists believed in star shitting penguins, the term still means simply, the lack of belief in a god or gods.

[dogpet]

Drew_2013 wrote

The creator hypothesis only moves the mindless process further down the chain & is therefore redundant. Sorry to piss on your chips.

My chips are fine thank you. You’ll have to explain this statement…

Seems clear enough, which part are you struggling with?

Infinite regress thwarts your introduction of a random creator, rendering it useless to the discussion. Do you have something more?

[Smellyoldgit]

For brevity, simplicity & amusement - where the fuck did this god-thing come from?

[Kinich Ahau]

Before the Big Bang don't think anyone had any time to create anything.

[ghoulslime]

Drew 2013, I just finished putting up the Christmas lights on my house, so I am feeling sort of warm and fuzzy, therefore I will make an attempt to reason with you.

Here are some of the cracks in the foundation of your argument:

False Equivalence - Comparison between a universe that exists for no reason that we can understand at present, and a universe that is created by some super intelligence for which there is no evidence, is not a comparison of arguments with equal merit. That is to say, the objective observation of the universe is not an equal hypothesis with the supposition and postulation of a sentient creator.

Oh, look! There is a sunset! I wonder how that could be? ≠ Oh, look! There is a sunset that the leprechaun's made with magical pixie dust.

Infinite Regress - If the universe could not simply be the product of natural phenomenon, and had to be created by some mighty super being, what process then created this super being?

Occam's Razor - (The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.)

The explanation of everything that we understand thus far about the universe thus far, does not require the addition of a superfluous super being who created it - whether that being is your god, aliens, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

The postulation of a god and the rejection of that postulation are not equal propositions. The first is a positive assertion that something exists, for which we have no evidence. The second position is simply a rejection of the first. Your "opinion" does not have the same logical weight as our "opinion".

Belief in a god is no less baseless than belief in leprechauns. There is no evidence for this belief. Gods are a human construct, a concept of human social evolution, which surely began with fear and reverence of nature. For want of factual answers to life's questions, humans have invented explanations for the world around them. Big humans, with super powers, up in the sky, are silly answers to profoundly important questions.

Which is more important to you, the truth or comforting delusion?

[Drew_2013]

We're not talking about a court of law. And no, circumstantial is not enough to criminally convict anyone, it either takes some hard evidence or a bad jury. The thing about circumstantial evidence, is that it doesn't satisfy reasonable doubts. While it is true that there doesn't need to be direct evidence, the evidence does need to directly point to something. For instance, the light bending around something that we can't see, is not direct evidence of the black hole, but since it would take something extremely massive to bend the light in such a way, the evidence points directly to something with a large mass that is bending the light which directly points to a black hole.

You’re mistaken, folks have been sent to jail on many occasions on circumstantial evidence alone. In some cases people have been sent to jail for murder even though no body was found. The difference between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence is that an inference is made from circumstantial evidence as you point out with a black hole.



I don't speak for all atheists, I just know what the term means. You are attaching meaning onto a term where it doesn't belong. It doesn't matter if some atheists believed in star shitting penguins, the term still means simply, the lack of belief in a god or gods.

The term atheism has in many circles has come to be known as a lack of belief in God or gods. The letter a in the word atheism means not or without, in this case without God or gods, just as the word asexual means reproduction not or without sex. The problem with the word atheism being redefined as meaning lack of belief in God or gods is the following:
First you might as well drop the a in atheism since it no longer means what it means. You might as well categorize yourself not as a ‘weak’ atheist but a weak theist.



Ironically it means you share more in common with theists than you think. Theists don’t believe God doesn’t exist and as a weak atheist you don’t deny God exists either. You evidently not only lack belief in Gods existence… you also lack belief in Gods non-existence. Apparently there isn’t enough evidence to convince you God does exist and lack of evidence to convince you God doesn’t exist. In essence you have no opinion in regards to this matter.



It’s pointless to debate the existence of God since my opponent in this case doesn’t deny the existence of God either so what is there to debate?


Lastly, I think I think the lack of belief gambit is just that…a debating technique to avoid making any claims and having to defend atheism as you say theists should defend theism.

[Drew_2013]

Drew 2013, I just finished putting up the Christmas lights on my house, so I am feeling sort of warm and fuzzy, therefore I will make an attempt to reason with you.

Thanks for going easy on me…


False Equivalence - Comparison between a universe that exists for no reason that we can understand at present, and a universe that is created by some super intelligence for which there is no evidence, is not a comparison of arguments with equal merit. That is to say, the objective observation of the universe is not an equal hypothesis with the supposition and postulation of a sentient creator.

This premise is predicated on a false assertion that there is no evidence the universe was caused, designed or engineered by an intelligent Creator. Again evidence is nothing more than facts that comport or agree with a conclusion. In my opinion there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the conclusion we are the result of a Creator. By preponderance I mean simply more in favor than against. I don’t deny there is evidence that supports the atheist hypothesis.



Secondly, any reasonable logical rationale person will concede that if we don’t owe our existence to an intelligent Creator then we do owe the existence of the universe and subsequently sentient beings to mindless forces that unintentionally caused such to occur. If you don't believe that either...then you simply have no opinion regarding this matter.


Infinite Regress - If the universe could not simply be the product of natural phenomenon, and had to be created by some mighty super being, what process then created this super being?

I don’t claim to know what process caused a super being to exist. The belief God is to the question what caused the universe and subsequently intelligent life to exist, theism isn’t a belief in what caused God to exist. Besides it doesn’t get naturalists off the hook…what caused the natural processes that caused the universe to exist? The problem of infinite regress is far more a problem for folks who believe we’re the result of natural processes.



Occam's Razor - (The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.)

It should be noted that Occam himself was a theist so apparently his principal didn’t stop him from believing we are the result of a Creator. Nonetheless I agree we should seek an explanation that multiplies the fewest entities provided such entities are indeed unnecessary. The simplest explanation for the existence of a laptop is it poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing but that should be rejected as invoking too few entities.



The explanation of everything that we understand thus far about the universe thus far, does not require the addition of a superfluous super being who created it - whether that being is your god, aliens, leprechauns, unicorns, etc.

That’s because there is a difference between explaining how things seem to work as opposed to explaining how things came to be. For example we can explain the inner workings of a car or a laptop without referring to how they came to be. We don’t need to invoke a Creator to understand how a laptop or car works. When we attempt to explain how such came into existence that’s a different story. In the case of laptops and cars we do know an intelligent designer creator was necessary.



The postulation of a god and the rejection of that postulation are not equal propositions. The first is a positive assertion that something exists, for which we have no evidence. The second position is simply a rejection of the first. Your "opinion" does not have the same logical weight as our "opinion".

You’re mistaken. The rejection of the God postulation results in the non-god creator designer engineer postulation. It would be no different than if you rejected the notion someone’s death was intentionally caused…whether you state it or not such a rejection means you believe the death was natural causes. Just as if you rejected the notion a laptop was caused to exist by an intelligent designer you would be implying it was the result of mindless forces that produced it unintentionally.



Which is more important to you, the truth or comforting delusion?

There are some folks who are comforted by the notion were the result of mindless forces that never intended our existence.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

Thanks for going easy on me…

That will likely change. Observe the meat grinder through which previous theists have been ground, and draw your conclusions. We have little patience for willfully ignorant people.

Drew_2013 wrote

This premise is predicated on a false assertion that there is no evidence the universe was caused, designed or engineered by an intelligent Creator. Again evidence is nothing more than facts that comport or agree with a conclusion. In my opinion there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of the conclusion we are the result of a Creator. By preponderance I mean simply more in favor than against. I don’t deny there is evidence that supports the atheist hypothesis.

Secondly, any reasonable logical rationale person will concede that if we don’t owe our existence to an intelligent Creator then we do owe the existence of the universe and subsequently sentient beings to mindless forces that unintentionally caused such to occur. If you don't believe that either...then you simply have no opinion regarding this matter.

Oh, right! YOUR unicorns are really real! Give me the evidence.

Now that the Jesus leprechauns are out of the bag, let's dispense with false pretenses that you are a rational person, and commence with the comedy!

Please provide us with the evidence for your imaginary god. We are holding our breath in anticipation of your overwhelming proof!

Drew_2013 wrote

I don’t claim to know what process caused a super being to exist. The belief God is to the question what caused the universe and subsequently intelligent life to exist, theism isn’t a belief in what caused God to exist. Besides it doesn’t get naturalists off the hook…what caused the natural processes that caused the universe to exist? The problem of infinite regress is far more a problem for folks who believe we’re the result of natural processes.

Oh, how fucking convenient that science has to provide factual explanations, and you can just read us story books! The Big Bang required no magic. All that transpired after the fact also required no magic. Your imaginary god is superfluous. All that we observe in the universe can be explained far more rationally by scientific methodology than by witch doctors throwing bones. Why insert an imaginary god into the equation? Your supreme being would, arguably, need to be vastly more complex than the universe.

Theism isn’t a belief in what caused your imaginary gods to exist, but claiming so does not negate the logical requirement to defend this very valid question. Where did your gods come from, if not your imagination? You demand that science demonstrate to religious dolts the origins of the universe and life within it, with empirical evidence, but demonstrate profound hypocrisy in maintaining that your absurd claim has no requirement for evidence beyond lots of stupid people insisting it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

Drew_2013 wrote

[/b]It should be noted that Occam himself was a theist so apparently his principal didn’t stop him from believing we are the result of a Creator. Nonetheless I agree we should seek an explanation that multiplies the fewest entities provided such entities are indeed unnecessary. The simplest explanation for the existence of a laptop is it poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing but that should be rejected as invoking too few entities.

The logic of his philosophical principle is sound, regardless of his flawed conclusions. You demonstrate your own failed logic in concluding that Occam's religious position must have been correct, since his philosophical principle is relatively solid. Please demonstrate which natural phenomena require your imaginary god? Please provide evidence that your superfluous, imaginary god is needed to explain anything.

And aren't you just a complete imbecile for trying to slip William Paley's fallacious watchmaker analogy into our little conversation, thinking that nobody would point out your flawed reasoning and embarrassing ignorance.

Drew_2013 wrote

That’s because there is a difference between explaining how things seem to work as opposed to explaining how things came to be. For example we can explain the inner workings of a car or a laptop without referring to how they came to be. We don’t need to invoke a Creator to understand how a laptop or car works. When we attempt to explain how such came into existence that’s a different story. In the case of laptops and cars we do know an intelligent designer creator was necessary.

Oh, thank you for using this fallacious reasoning, debunked too many times to even fathom, as a foundation for your delusional argument.

Laptops and cars were designed by intelligent creators. We understand the process under which these were created. Natural phenomena are obviously not manmade, nor is there any evidence that any intelligence had a hand in creating them.

I will let Dawkins explain it:

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.

3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a "crane," not a "skyhook;" for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.

4. The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that—an illusion.

5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.

6. We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.

Drew_2013 wrote

You’re mistaken. The rejection of the God postulation results in the non-god creator designer engineer postulation. It would be no different than if you rejected the notion someone’s death was intentionally caused…whether you state it or not such a rejection means you believe the death was natural causes. Just as if you rejected the notion a laptop was caused to exist by an intelligent designer you would be implying it was the result of mindless forces that produced it unintentionally.

I am not mistaken. The postulation of a god and the rejection of that postulation are not equal propositions, you fucking dolt! You claim there is a god, without any evidence. I observe your lack of evidence, and reject your positive assertions. This goal post is not going to move, you intellectually-dishonest scumbag.

As to the existence of the universe and the life within it, we both observe this with wonder. (Presumably! You might actually think you already have all of the answers.) I accept that science does not yet have all of the answers. I await with objective assessment any new information that we achieve in answering the many questions we have. If we learned tomorrow that this was all just a big leprechaun prank, I would amend my own understanding of the universe.

YOU claim, without any evidence, that your imaginary god made it all with magic.

Our positions are not polar opposites, you fucking conman.

And there you go with your fallacious laptop argument again!

Drew_2013 wrote

There are some folks who are comforted by the notion were the result of mindless forces that never intended our existence.

Since you could not answer the question, I will presume that your answer is that you prefer comforting delusion. Thank you for creating a position for me that I do not hold, just the same. I aspire to know truth, regardless of whether it is what I want to believe. You on the other hand, are a dishonest coward, still hiding behind comforting fairytales.

Fuck you, dolt!

[Drew_2013]

Oh, right! YOUR unicorns are really real! Give me the evidence.

Are you up to the challenge of a one on one debate?

Secondly, any reasonable logical rationale person will concede that if we don’t owe our existence to an intelligent Creator then we do owe the existence of the universe and subsequently sentient beings to mindless forces that unintentionally caused such to occur. If you don't believe that either...then you simply have no opinion regarding this matter.

No response?

I don’t claim to know what process caused a super being to exist. The belief God is to the question what caused the universe and subsequently intelligent life to exist, theism isn’t a belief in what caused God to exist. Besides it doesn’t get naturalists off the hook…what caused the natural processes that caused the universe to exist? The problem of infinite regress is far more a problem for folks who believe we’re the result of natural processes.

Oh, how fucking convenient that science has to provide factual explanations, and you can just read us story books! The Big Bang required no magic. All that transpired after the fact also required no magic. Your imaginary god is superfluous. All that we observe in the universe can be explained far more rationally by scientific methodology than by witch doctors throwing bones. Why insert an imaginary god into the equation?

For one, because I'm skeptical of the notion that mindless forces, minus plan or design or an engineering degree belched a universe into existence with the right conditions not only to cause life, but to sustain it and to subsequently cause something totally unlike itself, sentient beings to exist. That is an extraordinary claim in its own right. Or are you one of these weak atheists who doesn't deny God exists? If you don't why should I discuss the existence of God with you?

Your supreme being would, arguably, need to be vastly more complex than the universe.

Why would you argue something more complex than the universe is necessary to cause or create the universe when your postulation is that mindless forces with out plan intent could do so?


The logic of his philosophical principle is sound, regardless of his flawed conclusions. You demonstrate your own failed logic in concluding that Occam's religious position must have been correct, since his philosophical principle is relatively solid.

Please note if you put words in my mouth our conversation will end. I never said he must have been correct, the point however is that he didn't conclude God was multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Please demonstrate which natural phenomena require your imaginary god? Please provide evidence that your superfluous, imaginary god is needed to explain anything.

Your raising the burden of evidence again. I have an opinion regarding the issue of the existence of God. That opinion is based on well established incontrovertible facts that comport or favor that belief. They don't prove God created the universe, they do provide a basis to believe we owe our existence to a Creator. Almost certainly they won't persuade you or any atheists on this board but the merit of any case I make doesn't rest with whether it persuades advocates of atheism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

What ordinary counter explanation do you have? Or are you going to pretend in spite of all your bluster in this post that you're just a weak atheist who just lacks belief?


I will let Dawkins explain it:

I'm not arguing with Dawkins.

[ghoulslime]

Drew_2013 wrote

Oh, right! YOUR unicorns are really real! Give me the evidence.

Are you up to the challenge of a one on one debate?

Secondly, any reasonable logical rationale person will concede that if we don’t owe our existence to an intelligent Creator then we do owe the existence of the universe and subsequently sentient beings to mindless forces that unintentionally caused such to occur. If you don't believe that either...then you simply have no opinion regarding this matter.

No response?

I don’t claim to know what process caused a super being to exist. The belief God is to the question what caused the universe and subsequently intelligent life to exist, theism isn’t a belief in what caused God to exist. Besides it doesn’t get naturalists off the hook…what caused the natural processes that caused the universe to exist? The problem of infinite regress is far more a problem for folks who believe we’re the result of natural processes.

Oh, how fucking convenient that science has to provide factual explanations, and you can just read us story books! The Big Bang required no magic. All that transpired after the fact also required no magic. Your imaginary god is superfluous. All that we observe in the universe can be explained far more rationally by scientific methodology than by witch doctors throwing bones. Why insert an imaginary god into the equation?

For one, because I'm skeptical of the notion that mindless forces, minus plan or design or an engineering degree belched a universe into existence with the right conditions not only to cause life, but to sustain it and to subsequently cause something totally unlike itself, sentient beings to exist. That is an extraordinary claim in its own right. Or are you one of these weak atheists who doesn't deny God exists? If you don't why should I discuss the existence of God with you?

Your supreme being would, arguably, need to be vastly more complex than the universe.

Why would you argue something more complex than the universe is necessary to cause or create the universe when your postulation is that mindless forces with out plan intent could do so?


The logic of his philosophical principle is sound, regardless of his flawed conclusions. You demonstrate your own failed logic in concluding that Occam's religious position must have been correct, since his philosophical principle is relatively solid.

Please note if you put words in my mouth our conversation will end. I never said he must have been correct, the point however is that he didn't conclude God was multiplying entities beyond necessity.

Please demonstrate which natural phenomena require your imaginary god? Please provide evidence that your superfluous, imaginary god is needed to explain anything.

Your raising the burden of evidence again. I have an opinion regarding the issue of the existence of God. That opinion is based on well established incontrovertible facts that comport or favor that belief. They don't prove God created the universe, they do provide a basis to believe we owe our existence to a Creator. Almost certainly they won't persuade you or any atheists on this board but the merit of any case I make doesn't rest with whether it persuades advocates of atheism.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

What ordinary counter explanation do you have? Or are you going to pretend in spite of all your bluster in this post that you're just a weak atheist who just lacks belief?


I will let Dawkins explain it:

I'm not arguing with Dawkins.

So...too stupid to understand science! And...amazingly...no evidence for your imaginary god? I didn't think so! Fucking ass clown!