The existance of God

I apolagiz fur mah tarrible spelin in teh firts rownd an in da titel. REBUTTALS "If I ask you(atheist) to draw a circle indicating the knowledge mankind is capable of achieving, how large would your circle be? I would suspect very large. " It would be extremely large, yes. "Now, if I asked you to draw a circle within that circle indicating the amount of knowledge we currently posess, how large would your circle be relative to the larger circle? It would be extremely small I'd suspect, unless one is very arrogant. " Yes, one would have to be very arrogant to suggest we have anywhere near the possible knowledge mankind might acquire in it's entire existence. It would be very small. "Finally, I ask, isn't it possible that god exists outside of that small circle? " Outside the small circle, but inside the large one? No. If any sort of God exists (which I clearly believe is not the case) I believe it would be certainly outside the possible knowledge of mankind, therefore outside both of the circles of your analogy. We're talking about an omniscient and omnipotent being, correct? How could we possible be capable of understanding such a being? THAT is arrogance. "Pure objective logic tells us this has to be possible. " Anything is possible outside of the realms of our finite knowledge, that is logic. However, by making assumptions as you are, you're commiting one of the most common logical fallacies: Ad ignorantiam; an argument from ignorance. "Therefore, it's completely irrational for an atheist to say religion and faith are silly and make no sense. ." No. In order to make a positive claim (God exists) you must provide positive evidence. Many of your fellow Theists provide so-called evidence. Here are some of the common arguments for God: Argument from Holy Scripture Argument from Miracles Argument from Design Cosmological Arguments Ontological Arguments And so on. .. At best, these are simply unprovable philosophical arguments. At worst, they're plain ridiculous. Which one's do you support? None are outside reasonable doubt and all have been addressed countless times but my fellow Atheists. "[Atheism is] a very hypocritical position to take, seeing as how atheism is a sort of religion in its self that takes a considerable amount of faith to believe in. " Here we go again, with you calling Atheism a religion and claiming we have faith in it. Atheism is not a religion. It takes the position that God doesn't exist; it is the lack of religion. We don't have 'faith' in it, since we aren't making any kind of positive assertion. Once we explained the sun rising and setting people with the story of Helios riding a chariot of fire through the sky; alas such ridiculous stories have been filed under "myth". ARGUMENTS MOVING THE GOALPOSTS (Credit to Peter D. Wilson) Here is my analogy: Santa Clause (you believe in Santa Clause, right? But its possible he exists outside the small circle but inside the big circle? o. O;) travels the world once a year, delivering presents to all the boys and girls. He travels on a sleigh pulled by eight flying reindeer. How can you disprove this? Perhaps you could take a bunch of reindeer up on top of a tall building and start pushing them off; surely they will fly to safety. You could push every reindeer on Earth off of said building and come no closer to disproving the existence of flying reindeer. Obviously the flying ones flew away before they could be caught. .. The purpose of my analogy is to demonstrate the absurdity of two things: -Believing outlandish claims simply because there are presents under your tree. -Proving nonexistence is impossible. However, we can both our powers of observation and the acquired mass of human knowledge (Google baby) to make intelligent assumptions, like. .. MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION IS SO RIDICULOUS, BRAH. I'm sure that some of my theist friends on this site would strongly disagree me, but Christianity and Islam is just too ridiculous for me to believe. I'll focus on Christianity, but we can discuss Islam and Judaism if you like. .. The Bible is clearly the work of man. It contains no knowledge that was outside of what man knew during the time that it was written (2000BC-200AD). It is full of mythology that we see elsewhere; stories remarkably similar to other Gods in older religions, particularly Greek, Egyptian and Babylonian. How can you justify this? I mean, if God was going to write a book to benefit mankind, why would he write THAT book? Why include chapter after chapter of stories about morality, but not include a few tidbits of science, like telling us about hygiene? I mean it was around back then, though clearly in a less refined form. Why not mention that washing yourself was a good way to prevent the spread of diseases which have killed millions of people, many of them Christians. It doesn't seem very moral to me. SUMMARY There is no reason to doubt the nonexistence of God, simply because we cannot prove his nonexistence. The Holy Scriptures are utter rubbish. (I can and will elaborate further on this in future rounds) Atheism for the win.