God is a Fake

[falcon9]

one simple answer to this is that you can neither prove he exists or prove that he does not exist. it is all a matter of what you believe

Your "simple answer" is a logical fallacy.  Belief does not confer existence any more than disbelief confers non-existence therefore, belief is not a factor of existence.
"A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of:
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

[ashleyxatrocity]

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Fhtagn!! 

[Moosetoaster]

This. I didnt even read the rest. Just this. You win at this thread.

[abdyer2001]

no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer

[falcon9]

no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer

I disagree due to the distinction between requiring evidence to support the claim and the lack of substantiation for a belief.  The "simple answer" is therefore, 'case dismissed on the basis of a lack of evidence'.

[queenofnines]

no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer

I disagree.  Countless people have had their reasons for abandoning superstition, and it wasn't because they woke up one day and decided, "I think I'll stop believing in god now." 

Planting the seeds of reason is never a bad thing.

[falcon9]

no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer

I disagree.  Countless people have had their reasons for abandoning superstition, and it wasn't because they woke up one day and decided, "I think I'll stop believing in god now." 

Planting the seeds of reason is never a bad thing.

Some have reported having a "crisis of faith" however, this was not a reasoned decision process.  I knew a catholic priest who suggested that questioning empty faith can cause such a 'crisis' and that's likely why few do it.

[abdyer2001]

no matter what answer is placed on this forum, with this topic you will not be able to persuade either side. like i said you either believe or you dont. And that is the simple answer



I disagree due to the distinction between requiring evidence to support the claim and the lack of substantiation for a belief.  The "simple answer" is therefore, 'case dismissed on the basis of a lack of evidence'.
 
 
 
I can agree with that, there is no evidence in the existence of god.   

[sherryinutah]

The God I know is real and authentic.  He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.

 

[falcon9]

The God I know is real and authentic.  He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.

While you are free to place belief in whatever you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidential basis for your claim that "the god I know is real and authentic".  Indicating that is not an attempt to "take away" your belief; it is placing an emphasis on the lack of attributable substantiation in _what_ is claimed that belief is in.  The difference being that the 'belief' itself may be "real and authentic" however, it is false to claim that "god" is "real and authentic" without substantive and directly-attributable evidence.

[SurveyMack10]

The God I know is real and authentic.  He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.

 

 

[Abrupt]

The God I know is real and authentic.  He's like a very loving father who wants the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me.

While you are free to place belief in whatever you wish, the fact remains that there is no evidential basis for your claim that "the god I know is real and authentic".  Indicating that is not an attempt to "take away" your belief; it is placing an emphasis on the lack of attributable substantiation in _what_ is claimed that belief is in.  The difference being that the 'belief' itself may be "real and authentic" however, it is false to claim that "god" is "real and authentic" without substantive and directly-attributable evidence.

You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?

[Falconer02]

You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?

I don't see the correlation. Let's rewrite the original statement-

"The Gods I know are real and authentic.  They're like very loving fathers and mothers who want the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me."

By stating that this is an unverifiable claim, no where does it state that the person debating it is a god. It's just a statement pointing out the obvious lack of evidence for the claim.

[falcon9]

You do realize that by you stating that she doesn't know what she knows because you don't know it is akin to you claiming to be God?

I don't see the correlation. Let's rewrite the original statement-

"The Gods I know are real and authentic.  They're like very loving fathers and mothers who want the best for all of us and there is absolutely no one...who can take that away...from me."

By stating that this is an unverifiable claim, no where does it state that the person debating it is a god. It's just a statement pointing out the obvious lack of evidence for the claim.

Yes, and just to clarify even more concisely, an inherent claim of 'gnosis' remains an unverifiable claim, (rather than an implicit claim by challengers to be making a 'godlike' claim by challenging those initial claims).  That is, 'gnosis', ("knowing that one knows'), is a circular claim.

[Abrupt]

You both seem to be missing that she indicated the God she knows.  If she knows, then it is real to her.  Since reality is largely perception, and unless you can produce evidence that she is lying, you cannot challenge her on what she knows to be true to herself -- but you are free to have varying views for yourself.