No. Why?

Oh, I have seen it. It is embarrassing you are using it as a tool to evaluate your logic.

If the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof of existence, then we must conclude that all exist. — Asimov

Is this one more logic like "Hitchens' razor"?

Failure of proof of nonexistence just means that one can't prove that something doesn't exist. No need for absurd conclusions, because that can go both ways - if the failure of proof of nonexistence is taken as proof for non-existence, then we must conclude that everything which can't be proven to exist, doesn't exist.

Although, physicists have actually developed infinite multiverse theory, in which all really does exist, including Santa Clause, leprechauns and flying unicorns. And at least one universe in which jorndoe believes in God.

As far as clues for God's existence go, they are vast. I am not even talking about clues for God's existence here. I am saying that even if nothing would point to God existing, in universe like ours it would be unreasonable to conclude that there is no God.

Of course we're not omniscient. — jorndoe

So, at this point in time, you have no way of knowing if God exists or not. That makes it reasonable conclusion for you to be a neutral agnostic. If you believe or think that there is no God, you are being unreasonable.

I do know that God exists because of supernatural conviction. I don't have to prove that to you, nor I could.

As far as your questions about this or that cave story, I can answer a lot for you, as I did for some of your previous posts, but by your previous responses you don't seem to be very much interested in my answers for knowledge or understanding, so my answers went to waste. And this thread is not about specific claims for God or god anyway.

As far as you are aware, any of available claims can be true, or none at all, and it still doesn't show anything towards the non-existence of God.

Why on Earth would a supposed all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good deity... — jorndoe

Prove that a human has to understand everything about reality. Like, that there is an actual natural law that says that humans have to understand everything about all of the reality.

If you can't do that, if you are only voicing an opinion, then what you are writing here doesn't prove anything about the non-existence of God. At best, or worst, you can be neutral agnostic.

What about this "Hitchens' razor", by the way? It's embarrassing how some are using this to evaluate their thoughts:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

What is the evidence for this "Hitchens' razor"? It doesn't provide any evidence for it's claim, so it can be dismissed without evidence.

Nothing of note would ever be invented with this razor sharp method of thinking, since ideas would be dismissed without evidence, on spot, having being asserted without evidence. Thankfully people are not so cutting edge minded like Mr. Hitchens was, otherwise we would still be living in huts.

In that parallel universe, if I would go to a police because I was robbed, police would tell me: "Your assertion is made without evidence, so we are dissmising it without evidence. Case closed!"

Not to mention that there's no actual evidence for eternal material universe. Nor for universe coming to existence from nothing by some materialistic process. Nor for life coming to existence from non-life through chemistry and such. Hitchens could have used his own thought to dismiss his own worldview.

So what is this "razor"? Basically, just a sentence.

If God exists, His brilliance, His presence, ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable. So that His existence is denied is extraordinary, if He exists. — Banno

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists His presence ought be so all-encompasing as to be utterly undeniable.

It's just your opinion. And there is surely no law that says that a human's opinion has to be true.

I would say you are either dishonest here or you are operating on some wobbly logic. I wrote that from what I've read and heard, atheists are:

1) quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God
2) quite unreasonable in their reasoning about God

My argument is that reasoning an atheist uses to come to his or her atheistic position is unreasonable.

Now, if by atheists you also include agnostics who both don't know whether God exists and don't favor neither theism nor naturalism in any way, I exclude that group. But I don't think those are only, or even majority, of atheists. Not to mention that I have already written that agnosticism without atheism can be reasonably argued.

Your dishonesty, if it is not the other thing, comes with you acting as if all atheists simply say - well, we just don't know, could be either way, we are reserving our vote on this. You are basically presenting atheists as neutral agnostics who are equally unsure of both God creating the world and the world coming to existence by some form of chance or unconscious process lead by big bang and evolution. They just don't know, could be either one of those options, it's a head scratcher really for an atheist.

The point is that you posit the existence of something for which there is no evidence whatsoever, except perhaps in wishful thinking. — tim wood

Reasoning on evidence can be reasonable for an agnostic who plainly doesn't know nor favors either possibility regarding existence of God. As I wrote, but let's repeat, I think majority of people who regard themselves as atheists, and publicly so, are not in that group.

On the other hand, no evidence is not reasonable argument for those who favor non-existence of God.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists He would universally provide evidence for His existence.

Still not a single one reasonable argument for atheism.

I am not arguing for theism here, by the way. I already wrote that agnosticism without atheism can be reasonably argued.

But any argument for atheism is unreasonable. As evidenced by this thread. Not that this particular evidence was needed.

Nothing you wrote on this thread provided any reasonable argument for atheism. Maybe you can go back to the OP and provide an argument for atheism, not voice your opinions about God of the Bible.

But as I said, there is no reasonable argument for atheism, so distraction is next best thing, seemingly. And it's an obvious thing one can do, it's transparent, so it's also an unreasonable behaviour.

James 2:26, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. — Buxtebuddha

Oh my, let's not get into that debate on this thread.

From what I can tell, there is no justification in the western tradition, at least, for thinking that anyone can know anything about God... I'm not claiming that you don't have that understanding. I'm claiming you CAN'T have that understanding. Neither can I, of course. — Bitter Crank

You can't claim what you haven't experienced. Understanding that God exists comes supernaturally. Until you don't experience it, can't really know what it actually is. Hopefully you'll experience it.

Why do you just defer to The Bible? — jorndoe

I have an understanding that the Bible is God's word.

If you want shortest answer why Christianity and not any other religion, it's this - only Bible reveals that a human is not capable of bringing himself or herself to God, so salvation from this state is 100% on God's grace. All other religions teach some form of doing works to get to God. So in most important question, eternal existence, there are basically two options - Christianity on one side and everything else on the other.

Maybe also this, as a quick answer - Bible is much more complex that any other text I have read or examined, it is in a different league.

Is all suffering (without exception) part of the plan of this supposed deity you mention, or is it up to us to come up with relief as best we can (e.g. medical research)? — jorndoe

All suffering is part of what God is ultimately doing with this creation. Not that God personally causes suffering but God allows suffering to exist.

Everything you mention as humanity's effort - for example medical research, educated veterinarians and social care workers, negligence laws put in place, etc - is given for us to do as part of God's decree.

That turns things back to suffering and evil, with question if everything is under God's control, why does God allow suffering and evil?

And that's a big subject, not for this thread. There is a quote from Old Testament: "For in much wisdom is much grief, and he that increases knowledge increases sorrow."

If the objection is an accurate one based on the character of a specific God as portrayed via its followers and its "holy texts", then it is not offhand. It at least shows that this specific God is either evil and a liar or at most doesn't exist at all. — ProbablyTrue

It is offhand. Because, I guess you are reffering to the Bible and Bible is quite complex book. You can't just pick it up and read it however you like, and automatically understand what's written in it.

In one of the first pages of the Bible God says: "By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread."

Bread here is not only food but also word of God. Jesus is both Word of God and bread of life, for example. And that's one of various ways that reveal "bread" to mean God's message, not only food.

What God is saying right in the beginning, apart from us having to work to physically sustain ourselves, is: "By the sweat of your face you shall understand word of God." God doesn't say it is impossible to understand His message, but that it's not something one can just take as if it's on a plate.

You can read a passage here or there and make a conclusion about God. But you would be making your judgement hastily, especially if you are coming with the heart ready to judge God.

For the time being, God is allowing man's pleasures to be fulfilled, including man's pleasure to judge God Himself. That's not the only or main reason why God's word is not readily available to be understood, but it is part of both the complexity and seriousness of our reality.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider a legitimate argument against the existence of God? — ProbablyTrue

I can't think of any reasonable argument against the existence of God. Arguments can be made for agnosticism without atheism, but I don't see reasonable argument for atheism. At least among reasoning I have heard or read.

If you have great reasonable argument for atheism, share it. Maybe I'll conclude that it's reasonable or I'll point out why I think it's not.

There are good people and other animals suffering... Other than civilized societies, what — anywhere — cares about me/you/us? — jorndoe

"Suffering objection", like "evil objection", is at best offhand objection against presumed character of God, not an argument against existence of God.

Suffering and evil reveal seriousness of our reality, and to understand why God allows them, for some time within His creation, takes effort.

You don't expect to pick up a book on advanced mathematics and instantly understand how to solve complex equations. Why would you expect to get such hard fact of our reality as suffering and evil without a serious effort?

I do think that pain here and now is more pressing than the perfection of God's plan. — Banno

What you wrote is a knee jerk reaction. Much more emotional than result of an effort to understand how God can create a world with evil in it.

Not to mention that you are basically saying that in case God exists you are more moral than Him. Aside from illogicality that creation could have more empathy and love than all-powerful creator who gave creation said empathy and love, what you wrote is blasphemous, yet you are still alive and everything you have, including opportunity to publicly stand against God and present "your approach", is given to you by that very God.

But regardless, there is no known natural law that says that if God exists, there would be no evil in any part of His creation, at any time. "Evil objection" is an offhand objection against presumed character of God, not an argument against existence of God.

Not every story a man can tell is true. But that's neither pro or con for God's existence.

Being a soft atheist is the rationally consistent result of being an agnostic. — VagabondSpectre

An agnostic can say that he or she neither believes nor disbelieves that God exists. She just doesn't know what to think about it. If I would to classiffy myself prior to getting to know that God exists, I would say I was that kind of agnostic.

How do you understand that God exists? — VagabondSpectre

You probably (or maybe) won't like the answer, but the answer is - supernaturally. You cannot know that God exists until God decides to show to you that He exists.

I am not talking about one specific way of God doing it. If you go to a Christian church, for example, and talk to a large number of people who all say they are convinced that God exists, you will hear different ways each of them got the conviction. Some ways may be similar to each other, but generally, God reveals His existence in myriad of different ways.

Yes, but I would say that any atheism, hard or soft, is probably not reasonable. One can be agnostic but not an atheist.

It is a consequence of complex nature of our reality that people who believe in God don't do it in blind faith, as an agnostic (who is not an atheist) or an atheist would presume. But that's another topic.

To believe in God, or to have faith in God, even doesn't mean to believe that God exists. It means to put trust in God. Understanding that God exists has already occured.

Indeed, what's a few pointless, painful deaths in the big picture? — Banno

That is just a sample of offhand reasoning I'm talking about. There is really no deep thought, examination, inspection of our reality behind it. Not saying that you are not capable of deep thoughts, of course, but that your specific objection about our reality does not reveal anything of essence about our reality.

Of course, we could flip your argument around, Reductio - style. Given that God exists, atheism is incredible; yet atheists exist; therefore god is not credible... — Banno

Not really, it would be more like this - Given that God exists, atheism seems unlikely; yet atheists exist; therefore there is a purpose for atheism in this creation.

My atheism is me saying that arguments purporting to reveal God's existence or nature have always been based on unreasonable evidence. — VagabondSpectre

If you are an agnostic, saying that you don't know whether God exists or not, that would be one thing.

But if you want to conclude that you believe, or think, or are certain that there is no God, based on lack of what you define as evidence, is another thing.

There is no known natural law that says that if God exists, He will universally provide evidence for His existence.

Given the perfection of the world is such that God is, for you, undeniable, denying God must call for an extraordinary irrationality. — Banno

World is perfect in terms of its purpose, not in terms of some abstract perfection. In that sense I see it as perfect. In terms of general perfection, or ultimate perfection, however one would call it, it's far from perfect.

But, again, what OP is about is that merely observing atheistic train of thought, to put it that way, reveals it to be "quite unreasonable." And as such, it's a miracle, since it's out of norm to have people to be so unreasonable in their reasoning while they claim to use reason to come to conclusion. Just as a small note, basically all of today's prominent atheists are much more emotional than reasonable in their approach, while they claim to be reasonable in what they conclude, which in turns reveals itself to be unreasonable.

Given the premise of there being God, He must, by His divine nature, be evident in everything that happens. — Banno

This argument can be expanded upon, based on what's available to a human in regards to understanding God.

But OP is not about looking at God, but about looking at atheism. Real atheism, one that we witness on Earth, not some abstract idea of atheism, is quite unreasonable regardless if this universe is created by God or not. I happen to understand that God exists, so I can see it as a sort of miracle.

What leads us to the conclusion that the arguments for your new beliefs or understanding have themselves been "looked into more closely"? — Uneducated Pleb

Result of a math equation is either true or not, it doesn't matter what reseach or work have I done prior to solving the equation.

You might want to know whether I have been looking into it more closely so you would believe me or not without going into the subject matter yourself, but I don't need people either believing me or not based on my authority on this, or lack thereof.

Emotional outburst to the OP is in line with being "quite unreasonable in interpreting what nature provides as clues for or against God."

Reversing the argument and saying that "if atheists are merely firing blanks, then people who understand that God exists must be playing with an unloaded toy" is true, actually, but it's true only on surface level.

The deeper you get into understanding God through God's revelation and creation, the more you understand that everything is exactly as it should be, at this point in time. Including that one cannot deduce that God exists by looking at people who claim to believe that God exists.

The opposite is true for atheism. On surface level atheism seems reasonable. But the more you look into it, the more atheism reveals itself to be unreasonable.

Morality, as the term is generally understood, comes from God.

Any other view on morality is not really about morality, but about what people perceive as consensus on personal hedonism. In that case morality is just a label that serve to purposefully disguise the truth in atheistic universe - that ultimately there is no good or bad, but only what personal state of a human sees as useful or not for him or her. "Don't do me harm, and I won't do it to you, so I can get most out of this life" type of a contract. That type of "morality" comes from man, but it is not what people generally understand as morality, so it would be sort of a scam word (if we would actually be living in atheistic universe).

That's why John D. Rockefeller or King Solomon were the wealthiest men who ever lived? — Agustino

I don't know what that's got to do with satanic Apple company. There's an answer to your question and it starts with understanding that God's creation is complex. There are always exceptions, to put it simply.

Jesus said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

Solomon did a lot of work for satan, by the way, in later part of his life. He is probably saved person, but we could generally say that's not the norm in God's creation.

Apple is satanic company and Jobs was probably devil worshiper, one way or the other.

Apple logo is bitten apple, a symbol of man's rebellion against God in the garden. They seem to be proud of man's fallen state.

First Apple computer was sold for $666. This number is mark of the beast, explicitly revealed in the Bible as a mark for man or woman who follows satan. One of the Apple ads for their first computer said: "Byte into an Apple for 666."

One of their early ads was depicting Adam hiding his nakedness with computer, with snake behind him.

One of their main marketing themes throughout the years was rebellion. How hip. But what's the ultimate Apple's rebellion? It's against true God, the God of the Bible, as they have shown enough for all who are open to see.

By the way, Bible reveals that earthly riches follow those in this world who do most work for satan.

There are various directions on this thread about understanding this theoretical AI, but common conclusion seems to be that this AI cannot know, on its own, if creator exists or not.

Even if this AI is programmed to seek an answer about how it came to exist, to look for clues and evidence and make conclusions about it, it still cannot know if there is a creator, a conscious being with plan and purpose, that created both it and all of its environment. That is, unless creator reveals the truth to the AI in some way.

I agree that there has to be a code that allows AI to do stuff, but at the same time this AI is conscious being, and I don't know how such being, a conscious being at a level of human consciousness or slightly above, would think in said environment.

If it has been programmed to live in its environment and nothing else how could it even dedicate processing time to it? — Sir2u

We can assume that AI is programmed to think about various things, so it has processing time to think how it came to be. But it seems very unlikely that AI could know that it is created by a creator who not only created it but whole AI's environment, unless that knowledge is somehow given, programmed, into the AI. And this knowledge has to be given in a way so AI would believe it's true, because in some scenarios AI could think it's a lie even if it had the information.

As far as on its own, I think AI could at best develop a number of hypotheses, but it probably couldn't have a knowledge, an absolute knowledge.

No it's not. Direct testimony from God reveals that many will claim to be His followers yet He never knew them.

It's interesting to read exchange about Christians between those who don't seem to have read the Word of God in any meaningful way.

Jesus Christ clearly states that many will speak of Him as their Lord and will claim to do acts in His name, but He will reject them at the judgement day with words: "Get away from me, I never knew you."

So right away we have direct testimony from God Himself that there are many who profess Him but they are not of Him, He never knew them.

Next we have direct command from Jesus to turn the other cheek, love the enemy and not take up arms.

Next we have direct revelation from Jesus that narrow is the way to salvation and wide is the road to destruction.

No human is perfect and every Christian fails in following God's commandments. But to talk about mostly masonic presidents and other "movers and shakers" who govern the society as being Christians' representatives, while they basically never mention words "Jesus Christ" let alone talk about Jesus as their saviour, is absurd.

Bible clearly reveals that governance of the world is given to the fallen one.

There is only one representative of Christians and that's Jesus Christ.

Love is the state of maximum acceptance.

As opposed to evil, which is the state of maximum denial.

God is the one who is absolute love, for example. As such, He allows even evil on this world to exist. And He gives us command to love our enemies and bless them.

On the other hand, as a state of maximum denial evil ultimately wants to cease to exist, to be destroyed, and that's what will happen.

Headline for this post reminded me about something related.

You say human life is only as good as it is useful.

I don't know whether you are an atheist or not, but within atheistic universe, truth itself is only as good as it is useful.

Slam dunk case for the non-existence of God?

Within reality we can reach, it is impossible to calculate less than 50/50 probability that God exists.

But it is possible to calculate almost 100% chance that God exists based on available measurements. The more measurements about our reality one uses in calculation, the closer to 100% chance that God exists it gets. It's ironic.

At the same time, issue about evidence for God, case for God, proof for God, is either honestly mistaken one or purposefully misleading one, since no human can provide an evidence that God exists to another human.

I don't know if you are. I'm asking a question. If you care to answer, answer, if not, don't.

No need for ?s and !s really. In order to shorten back and forth, which didn't work, I asked if you believe in big bang and evolution as an atheist, because there are people who believe both in God and big bang and evolution, but with different explanations about it. You still didn't say what is it that you believe.

So, what do you believe? You don't believe in atheistic big bang and evolution, nor do you believe that those are most probable explanations of how universe got to exist, as far as you can tell? If you believe in it, than you believe that you came from what is essentially nothingness, by chance. And if that would really be the case, your opinion about morals, mine too, would be ultimately worthless.

I understand that God exists, so I do see each of us living morally better or worse relative to inherent nature of reality. Everybody falls short, though.