A question for atheists . . .

[JimL]

No. In regard to God and the universe, if I cited anything, "In the beginning God created . . . ." the universe. And that the universe is evidence. Now the argument is then either the universe is evidence of the Bible claim or it is not.

Our human intelligence is also in evidence. And it is understood, I would think, that something cannot come from nothing.

So the universe is either evidence of God or is it evidence that there cannot be a God?

If it is evident to you that "something cannot come from nothing," then it should be just as evident to you that the universe was not created because to be created in that sense means to come from, or to be created out of, nothing. When we talk about "something not coming from nothing" what is meant is that whatever the something is that comes into existence, the substance thereof is also in its cause. Thats not what christianity or other creation myths assert. In the religious perspective, the created is of a wholly new and distinct substance than that of its creator, thus the created came from nothing.

[Roy]

So the universe is either evidence of God or is it evidence that there cannot be a God?

No. There are other options.

You might have realised this if you'd recast your argument in terms of forests and Winnie-the-Pooh.

[Tassman]

So the universe is either evidence of God or is it evidence that there cannot be a God?

The universe is evidence of the universe's existence, that's all. To posit 'god-did-it' is a logically fallacious 'argument from ignorance'.

[37818]

The universe is evidence of the universe's existence, that's all. To posit 'god-did-it' is a logically fallacious 'argument from ignorance'.

So you merely disallow the claim God made the "heavens and the earth." What is the evidence of space? We see invisible space by the matter we see in it. The universe is in evidence. If it was created should it not be consider that it would either be that evidence of being created or in some way be evidence that it could not have been created?

[Tassman]

So you merely disallow the claim God made the "heavens and the earth."

Yes, there's no good reason to think this.

What is the evidence of space? We see invisible space by the matter we see in it. The universe is in evidence. If it was created should it not be consider that it would either be that evidence of being created or in some way be evidence that it could not have been created?

But there is no good reason to think it was created. God-did-it is a failed hypothesis.

[37818]

Yes, there's no good reason to think this.



But there is no good reason to think it was created. God-did-it is a failed hypothesis.

OK. What specific evidence do you see from our universe that makes the concept of "God" unnecessary and untenable?

[Roy]

OK. What specific evidence do you see from our universe that makes the concept of "God" unnecessary and untenable?

The total failure of those promoting the concept to not only produce an argument that isn't fallacious, but even produce a coherent and consistent concept in the first place.

[37818]

The total failure of those promoting the concept to not only produce an argument that isn't fallacious, but even produce a coherent and consistent concept in the first place.

Address the concept that uncaused existence is God's identity, His Hebrew Name meaning the self Existent or Eternal one. The only argument you can have is a out and out denial. To contend God is not God.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Address the concept that uncaused existence is God's identity, His Hebrew Name meaning the self Existent or Eternal one.

I don't know why you keep repeating this. It is blatantly false. The Tetragrammaton does not mean either "the self-existent one" or "the eternal one."

[37818]

I don't know why you keep repeating this. It is blatantly false. The Tetragrammaton does not mean either "the self-existent one" or "the eternal one."

So you believe. I know and so believe that God's Name means Who Is, that is, the Self-Existent. Strong's Hebrew dictionary has self Existent. What Hebrew dictionary do you prefer?

[Tassman]

OK. What specific evidence do you see from our universe that makes the concept of "God" unnecessary and untenable?

There is no good reason to introduce a creator god into the equation at all. It's a failed hypothesis.

[37818]

There is no good reason to introduce a creator god into the equation at all. It's a failed hypothesis.

Why do you think that?

[Tassman]

Why do you think that?

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

[Doug Shaver]

So you merely disallow the claim God made the "heavens and the earth."

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

[Roy]

The total failure of those promoting the concept to not only produce an argument that isn't fallacious, but even produce a coherent and consistent concept in the first place.

Address the concept that uncaused existence is God's identity, His Hebrew Name meaning the self Existent or Eternal one.

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.

The only argument you can have is a out and out denial. To contend God is not God.

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.
[2]The implicit unsupported assertion that there can only be one uncaused existence.
[3]Assuming that the name given to an entity accurately reflects the characteristics of that entity.
[4]Equivocating between God as an uncaused existence and God as described in the Bible.