A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

Modern science provides a better explanation of where the sun goes at night, etc.

So your argument is modern knowledge versus ancient knowledge is your primary reason not to accept any concept of God?

I see no reason to accept it. That is different from disallowing it.

Do you reject the concept of an uncaused existence? [Like things in 4D space are not the 4D space things in existence are not the uncaused existence.]

You've responded to my complaint that God promoters invariably use inconsistent concepts and fallacies by using an inconsistent concept[1] and three fallacies[2][3][4].

You are a quintessential apologist.

You are wrong - I can instead point out your multiple errors.

[1]"Self-existent" and "eternal" are not the same - something could be self-existent but not eternal, or vice versa.

Explain this distinction as you see it. For example: Bertrand Russell makes the distinction between "existence" and "being."

[2]The implicit unsupported assertion that there can only be one uncaused existence.

Why do you think that?

[3]Assuming that the name given to an entity accurately reflects the characteristics of that entity.

What criteria do you use?

[4]Equivocating between God as an uncaused existence and God as described in the Bible.

Well, it happens to be what I understand to be true. How do you decided what you will or will not believe is true? How do you know what you know?

[Roy]

[1]"Self-existent" and "eternal" are not the same - something could be self-existent but not eternal, or vice versa.

Explain this distinction as you see it. For example: Bertrand Russell makes the distinction between "existence" and "being."

Why should I waste my time? Everything you've written here indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to grasp that distinction, even though it's trivial and based on simple definitions.

[2]The implicit unsupported assertion that there can only be one uncaused existence.

Why do you think that?

Why do I think what?

What criteria do you use?
Well, it happens to be what I understand to be true. How do you decided what you will or will not believe is true? How do you know what you know?

I see no point in answering these since you clearly can't manage the crude concepts involved, nor is there likely to be any lurker who would be interested but who hasn't already realised what you haven't.

[Tassman]

So your argument is modern knowledge versus ancient knowledge is your primary reason not to accept any concept of God?

No, my argument is that modern verifiable knowledge verses ancient mythology.

[Doug Shaver]

Do you reject the concept of an uncaused existence?

I reject the supposition that the concept of causation is applicable to the concept of existence.

[37818]

Why should I waste my time? Everything you've written here indicates that you are either unable or unwilling to grasp that distinction, even though it's trivial and based on simple definitions. Why do I think what?I see no point in answering these since you clearly can't manage the crude concepts involved, nor is there likely to be any lurker who would be interested but who hasn't already realised what you haven't.

Well if you think explaining your understanding of a thing a waste of time.

I think you have a real problem with what is and what is not really true.

I believe in an uncaused existence which/Whom I identify as the God of the Hebrews.
Things in existence are not uncaused. The uncaused existence is omnipresent, invisible and everything else which has existence is in it and cannot not be in it.

Now your agreement is not required.

[37818]

No, my argument is that modern verifiable knowledge verses ancient mythology.

OK. So what have you against verifying God on His terms? " . . .If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ." -- 1 John 5:9. " . . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or . . . ." -- Jesus of Nazareth, John 7:17. You cannot be willing to do what you are not willing to know or understand.

I reject the supposition that the concept of causation is applicable to the concept of existence.

Space-time is a caused existence.

[Roy]

Well if you think explaining your understanding of a thing a waste of time.

I think it's a waste of time trying to explain it to you.

I think you have a real problem with what is and what is not really true.

I believe in an uncaused existence which/Whom I identify as the God of the Hebrews.
Things in existence are not uncaused. The uncaused existence is omnipresent, invisible and everything else which has existence is in it and cannot not be in it.

[Tassman]

OK. So what have you against verifying God on His terms? "

. . .If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. . . ." -- 1 John 5:9. " . . . If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or . . . ." -- Jesus of Nazareth, John 7:17. You cannot be willing to do what you are not willing to know or understand.

SERIOUSLY!

[37818]

No. I know God. Else I would be an atheist too.
Uncaused existence needs no God. All traditional arguments for God set out to "prove" God's "existence." Existence in all traditional theist arguments is presumed. Existence does not need proof in those arguments, God does. Again, uncaused existence needs no God.

SERIOUSLY!

OK. What proof do you have that a Bible claim is false? Caveat, cannot merely be a disagreement on an interpretation, and not an issue of translation, nor a known textual variant issue. Can you do that?

[Tassman]

No. I know God. Else I would be an atheist too.

No, you FEEL as though you "know God". Why should I believe you?

OK. What proof do you have that a Bible claim is false?

It is you making the assertion that the bible is true, the burden of proof rests with you. I see no reason to accept a collection of myths and hearsay deriving from a credulous era, as true.

[37818]

No, you FEEL as though you "know God". Why should I believe you?

I am just one of many. All genuine Christians know God. ". . . Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. . . ." -- 1 John 4:7. Jesus said in His prayer that night, knowing God is to have eternal life (John 17;3). The Apostle Paul wrote those not knowing God do not because they disobey the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8).

It is you making the assertion that the bible is true, the burden of proof rests with you. I see no reason to accept a collection of myths and hearsay deriving from a credulous era, as true.

Again, I am only one of many. You refuse to look at the proof.

[Roy]

Again, I am only one of many. You refuse to look at the proof.

You have no proof.

If you were honest, you would start with that admission. Instead, it requires considerable pushing and prodding to get you to admit that your "proof" is nothing more than your own unsubstantiable belief that those seeking your god will find him.

Your compatriots would do well to tell you to shut up.

[37818]

You have no proof.

If you were honest, you would start with that admission. Instead, it requires considerable pushing and prodding to get you to admit that your "proof" is nothing more than your own unsubstantiable belief that those seeking your god will find him.

Your compatriots would do well to tell you to shut up.

Well from the stand point that the written word of God is the word of God. That is one proof in and of itself. Your agreement is not required. Creation we know as our visible universe is another evidence.

What atheist offers proof that their cannot be any God? None. It is argued the burden of proof is upon the theist. Well do we need to prove existence?
God's identity is uncaused Existence. The things in existence are not uncaused.

[Tassman]

I am just one of many. All genuine Christians know God. ". . .

ALL the many Christian denominations and sects are "genuine" in their eyes and they ALL claim to know God. What makes you different?

Again, I am only one of many. You refuse to look at the proof.

You have no "proof".

[Roy]

Well from the stand point that the written word of God is the word of God. That is one proof in and of itself.

To all the intelligent Christians on this forum:

Why do you never correct 37818's ridiculous errors and avoid the impression that apologetics is nonsense and Christians are idiots?