Can't proove that God is imaginary, just as you can't prove that he is not. It is a moot point. When i say "balance of probability" i am not referring to some close 50/50 split on probable outcome. I'm using it in the legal sense that we say it is most likely whichever deity you worship does not exist because i was being polite. I should have said "beyond all reasonable doubt". Atheism is more reasonable to believe in because it does not assert "fact" about reality that we already know to be false. (I.E that the world was made in 6 days, that there was a world wide flood, that supernatural occurences are common place regardless of a lack of any evidence supporting them)
Easy to say but you haven't offered anything to convince me of that Atheism is more reasonable. By the way, you are rejecting G-d based on literal interpretation of the Bible, an interpretation that I too reject.
look, i don't intend to be rude to any specific religions - i think they all have a similar amount of proof in regard to evidence for the existence of their deity... and that's none!
Now you are merely speculating. I know of religions that use various arguments but I wouldn't would say they all offer proof. And no they are all not similar by any means.
which is why most atheists are technically Agnostic we aknowledge that there is always a chance that there is something that we do not know. I don't need to refute every definition of God just as i don't need to refute every definition of the tooth fairy - some say she can't be seen or measured by science... but you don't see me saying "oh no! - my flimsy science can't see her... that proves she's real"!
Nor do I have to refute arguments against the existence of G-d nor have I ever tried to prove that G-d is real.
The problem of saying creation proves a creator is a cop out. It's basically saying i don't understand so it must be magic. as i stated earlier we don't a single irrifutable concept for the beginning of existence, although we do have some very good theories, we do have a pretty clear idea of almost everything that has happened since... and so far, none of it needs a supernatural explanation - so why should the beginning?
I never said that creation proves a creator. You seem to be the one with the hang up about "proof". Concerning creation is the teleological argument, one of many arguments for the existence of G-d, which is no more or no less of a cop out than your premise for G-d not existing. However if that is the basis for your belief system I would not charge you with that.
Furthermore, saying that because there is a physical universe that gives you reason to believe in your specific deity is like finding a rock on the ground ans assuming it was placed there by a jamaican robot 40 million years ago on its way to a fancy dress party on mars. It makes no sense, but neither of us can prove that it didn't happen....yet.
My belief in G-d is based on more than just the existence of the physical universe however I'm entitled to believe in G-d on whatever basis I choose without apologize and ridicule. Just because it makes no sense to you doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.
Wait, I think you mean it is not necessary for you to prove the existence of these mythical creatures don't you... If you disproved them somehow, the same argument would be equally valid in disproving God. (apart from maybe "I'm a grown up now i don't believe in fairly tails anymore" - wouldn't recommend you use that one, it tends to just offend people, and it's not even an arguement, just the basic rationalisation we have all gone through in regards to the tooth fairy and santa clause - and with some of us, God)
Wrong. That is not what I mean at all. Again more assumptions on your part.
that's true, although as all the arguements for god's existence fall down - as they have, continuing to believe becomes more and more absurd. If i point out there is no evidence of a fancy dress party ever having occured on Mars - you could still assume all evidence had been lost. If i point out Jamaica doesn't even build robots, you could still assume that it might do so in the future. If i point out that we have no evidence of robots on earth before man - you may choose to believe that the jamaican robot builders of the future made a time travelling party robot that left no traces of any of his adventures on earth... There is no possible way you can claim that an argument with no valid premisese can be held true. It doesn't make sense.
Subjective. Those arguments for G-d assume a valid premise like those arguments against G-d assume a valid premise. Its up to the individual to determine what to accept and what to reject.
And there always will be. But not for your specific god which requires definition, in which case you are giving him premises which can be invalidated and disproved (ie. If you say God created the world in 6 days - and i say he didn't and show the evidence of how he couldn't, your god may still exist but what you have stated he can/did do does not apply - unless you alter your redefine what he did saying something like - they weren't normal days etc)
Obviously you don't have any knowledge nor understanding of my "specific G-d" as if you did you would know G-d doesn't require Definition. He requires nothing. That which is revealed is only for our benefit. And the examples you used is taken from a literal interpretation which again I do not accept.
once you go through it step by step you'll realise there is no room for god in the real world - His definition eventually becomes something along the lines of:
The only thing that I have realize is that there is no room for G-d in your world but G-d is active in mine. That doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother you.
"There is a god, he may have done something during the begining, he probably didn't though as there's no evidence that he did, he didn't create man in one day, nor did he have anything to do with how people evolved otherwise there'd never have been any free will, he didn't give man a "moral compass" as morality existed long before he started "talking to people", none of his miracles have been scientifically verifiable - hence most likely not miracles, he can't intervene in reality or if he can he "chooses not too" either way he doesn't so seems kinda useless on that front, if he can talk to people he can't tell them anything they don't already know and is indistinguishable from normal imaginary internal dialogue, he can't help sick people who pray any more than a normal placebo, He may or may not punish or reward people after death, even though there's no evidence that we continue to exist as conscious beings after the brain permanently stops functioning."
So basically, God is indistinguishable from Nothingness....
t:
