I believe God controls everything

[umirano]

Darren, in your post you mention a lot of activists, doctors, nurses and social workers / volunteers. Those are all humans caring for another human. I don't see god at work there. I'm glad humans have more compassion and medical understanding than god.

 

Oh, and good luck with therapy.

[umirano]

There is evidence. Read the solution to the "problem of evil" argument by Augustine of Hippo.

 

From Wikipedia:

 

A number of variations of this kind of theodicy have been proposed throughout history, but their similarities were first described by the twentieth-century philosopher John Hick, who classified them as "Augustinian". They typically assert that God is perfectly (ideally) good; that he created the world out of nothing; and that evil is the result of humanity's original sin. The entry of evil into the world is generally explained as punishment for sin and its continued presence due to humans' misuse of free will. God's goodness and benevolence, according to the Augustinian theodicy, remain perfect and without responsibility for evil or suffering.

 

Your counter basically wants me to believe in the concept of original sin. I'm afraid, I remain unconvinced.

 

As for evidence of God's existence, read either the ontological argument by Anselm or the cosmological argument by Thomas Aquinas. The former proves God's existence rationally (a priori), the latter proves it empirically (a posteriori).

 

Hehe... no, those aren't proofs at all. A proof lets me independently verify a claim. Neither the ontological nor the cosmical argument are proofs in the sense the term is used in courts or science. They are arguments enjoying very little respect among thinkers, logicians and philosophers in general, as clair pointed out already.

 

Rene DesCartes, the creater of many mathematical theorums that you learned in high

 

It's "René Descartes" and "theorems".

 

school, also has an argument for the existence of God in his volume called "Meditations on First Philosophy". (This is the same book where he said, "I think, therefore I am.") It's worth checking out.

 

Here's his argument: Descartes's Proofs of God's Existence. I personally find it to be quite esoteric. He makes plenty of unsubstanciated assumptions, e.g. the following:

 

[...] there is a hierarchy of beings. They can be divided in four categories:

 

• Material bodies: which are imperfect;
  
• Humans: a mix of material bodies and spirit, which are imperfect;
  
• Angels: pure spirit, and imperfect;
  
• God: perfect, only spiritual, being.
  

 

In the last line he already assumes what he's trying to proof. I don't think I'd have passed my logic 101 course by writing down circular proofs like this.

 

All so called "proofs" for gods existence are heavily flawed in similar ways to this one. This is why, even if they firmly believe in a god, most people really are agnostic theists.

 

So the philosophical arguments for god's existence are very weak on their legs. What about scientific, court proof evidence? Well there's none, otherwise atheists would be a fringe group like flat earthers. In the US they make about 16% of the population and in developed nations of Europe up to 40%.

[Allumere]

I am not remotely versed in philosophy or the various arguments etc. so I'm not going down that road... and referencing the Bible is as useless as ***s on a bull when discussing the existence of God let alone a Christian God with someone who does not believe.

 

The one thing I don't hear discussed is the documented near-death experiences of atheist that result in a very clear change in opinion. I haven't read extensively but it seems that in the least these individuals acknowledge something exist beyond this life. Yeah, I know, use a controversial topic to debate a controversial topic....but for me personnel I think it bears some weight. NDEs are difficult for most people to swallow as it is so it makes no sense in my mind that an atheist would go to the trouble or reporting on an experience that completely contradicts what they have stood behind in the past.

[endlessabyss]

God's existence is pretty evident at this point; it really isn't worth arguing about though. The arguments proposed for God's existence outweigh the arguments for His non-existence. Furthermore, the scientific evidence is piling up for outside intelligence being needed to create life; hence, I.D. > evolution.

 

Why do you think this guy changed his worldview?: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind | Strange Notions

 

Materialists try to get around the Cosmological argument, and the argument from fine tuning, by invoking a multi-verse. But if you invoke a multi-verse, you are invoking millions of possibilities for their to be any variety of god that you'd like, so it doesn't get rid of God in the least. Plus, there is no evidence for a multi-verse to begin with; it's the equivalent of invoking God, scientifically speaking.

 

Here's Leonard Susskind's way of dealing with the fine-tuning of the universe, from his book, "Cosmic Landscape":

 

In the past, most physicists (including myself) have chosen to ignore the elephant in the room, even to deny its existence. They preferred to believe that natures laws follow from some elegant mathematical principle, and the apparent design of the universe is a lucky accident.

 

I would go on, but will this change peoples opinion about God, nope. But, it is a completely reasonable belief to hold.

 

I have been floating in between Deism and Christianity for some time now. I have looked at atheism deeply, but the chance hypothesis fails on many levels, imho.

Edited November 25, 2014 by endlessabyss

[endlessabyss]

All three arguments are flawed in many different levels and have no credibility within the philosophy circles and in the academic philosophy world. They've been rebutted again and again and again. They're just tools that theist apologists use to confuse uneducated people. If there was a bulletproof argument for existence of God then the discussion was over. There's a reason that less than 15% of professional philosophers are theists and over 65% are atheists (over 85% are non-believers as a good portion are "theological noncognitivists").

 

 

Could I get a source?

[M30USA]

What time period are we talking about, as well? 85% of CURRENT philosophers? Because I'm taking a philosophy course right now and, when I tally up the list, almost all of the most famous classic philosophers were theists:

 

Socrates

Plato

Aristotle

Augustine

Aquinas

DesCartes

 

Someone actually asked the following question in my class:

 

"Why does it seem that all the greatest philioshers, except for Nietzsche and a few minor ones, believe in God?"

[TheFinalWord]

What time period are we talking about, as well? 85% of CURRENT philosophers? Because I'm taking a philosophy course right now and, when I tally up the list, almost all of the most famous classic philosophers were theists:"

 

To me quality matters too. Dr. Alvin Plantinga is an amazing philosopher at Notre Dame who has written extensively on Christian theism. Others such as Richard Swinburne at Oxford, Robert Adams at Oxford, Dallas Willard, Peter Van Inwagen, Eleonore Stump...top notch modern philosophers that argue for Christian theism. Total percentage is not everything.

[TheFinalWord]

I have been floating in between Deism and Christianity for some time now. I have looked at atheism deeply, but the chance hypothesis fails on many levels, imho.

 

Thanks for sharing. It's been interesting to follow your intellectual explorations. I've been there too with deism as it seems the best way to reconcile the problem of evil and suffering...but at the same time deism seems to negate the cross. What are your thoughts?

[umirano]

God's existence is pretty evident at this point

 

How is it evident? We have a plethora of mutually incompatible religions. Only one of them could be true. Yet every single one of them fails to adequately explain the world as it is and has been. Even worse, they're proven wrong on more and more claims as humanity progresses. And it has been that way ever since the first attempts at science in ancient civilizations. Religion holds no water. It's a mind altering non-chemical drug, mainly designed and used to assemble people for political or social purposes.

 

it really isn't worth arguing about though.

 

Oh, it certainly is worth arguing about it. The negative output that religion creates causes thousands of deaths and injured people every day. Religiosity significantly reduces wealth, health, happiness and freedom for people.

[umirano]

I have looked at atheism deeply, but the chance hypothesis fails on many levels, imho.

 

I don't think you have. (Agnostic) atheism holds no hypothesis. It is the default position. We do not suppose a teapot orbiting the sun like "we" suppose a deity. We have objectively no reason to suppose a deity. Ockham's razor further requires us to look for the most economical and probable explanation for phenomena.

 

Any religion fails both, the teapot argument and Ockham's razor. Furthermore most religions hold abhorrent social and political views and are usually very reluctant to distance themselves from racism and ethical cleansing or even openly encourage them.

 

Religions are neither useful for understanding our world nor desirable when it comes to building a sustainable community of equals across the human race.

Edited November 25, 2014 by umirano
clarity of quoting

[M30USA]

To me quality matters too. Dr. Alvin Plantinga is an amazing philosopher at Notre Dame who has written extensively on Christian theism. Others such as Richard Swinburne at Oxford, Robert Adams at Oxford, Dallas Willard, Peter Van Inwagen, Eleonore Stump...top notch modern philosophers that argue for Christian theism. Total percentage is not everything.

 

Richard Swinburne! The man!

[endlessabyss]

Thanks for sharing. It's been interesting to follow your intellectual explorations.

 

Thanks!

 

I've been there too with deism as it seems the best way to reconcile the problem of evil and suffering...but at the same time deism seems to negate the cross. What are your thoughts?

 

Suffering could be a reason someone adopts the Deistic position; my reason for taking it up is because of the credibility of the bible, as an aggregate. Suffering seems to be a phenomenon that humans largely create for themselves (C.S. Lewis thought the same). I think the overall theme of the bible matches up with the way reality works. After pondering very deeply, I hold that humans are inherently evil (selfishness, power hungry, lustful, etc.), and they'll come up with whatever excuse they can to deny God's existence. This world is broken, and will stay broken, unless there is some supernatural intervention.

 

I often think God has given humans the innate responsibility of caring for one another, but this is overruled by the humans evil nature. If we carried out this responsibility, the world would be such a greater place. I have found myself in many positions where I have generally felt great sympathy for peoples struggles, almost to the point of tears, and I ask myself, why? I know there are others who feel the same way.

 

As for Deism negating the cross, I agree in a sense. I have seen people incorporate Deism in their Christian beliefs because of free will. If you believe that God is separate from the Creation though, and doesn't intervene in human affairs (like Deism proposes), the Resurrection doesn't seem like a likely event. If you read the works of Thomas Paine, who was Deisms strongest advocate, he essentially rules out all revealed religion. I would concur with Paine's tenants.

 

My Deism accords to the Christian faith: Christian deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; my dilemma is that I have a difficult time discerning whether Christ was actually God, or not. There is so little information about His existence.

 

As you know, Bart Ehrman has had a profound impact on the way I look at Christianity, but I can feel myself slowly being brought back to the Christian position.

 

P.S. WLC is the greatest contemporary philosopher among us (and I wouldn't consider myself a Christian). I have watched all of his debates, and he has dismantled all of his opponents, besides maybe one lol (take a guess who that may have been).

Edited November 25, 2014 by endlessabyss

[endlessabyss]

How is it evident? We have a plethora of mutually incompatible religions. Only one of them could be true. Yet every single one of them fails to adequately explain the world as it is and has been. Even worse, they're proven wrong on more and more claims as humanity progresses. And it has been that way ever since the first attempts at science in ancient civilizations. Religion holds no water. It's a mind altering non-chemical drug, mainly designed and used to assemble people for political or social purposes.

 

 

You do realize God and religion are autonomous. right?

 

Oh, it certainly is worth arguing about it. The negative output that religion creates causes thousands of deaths and injured people every day.

 

 

I'd say humans create negative output, not religion. We can go back in history and see secular societies that created nothing but disparity/misery as well.

 

 

Religiosity significantly reduces wealth, health, happiness and freedom for people.

 

 

Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish.

[endlessabyss]

I don't think you have.

 

Comical.

 

(Agnostic) atheism holds no hypothesis. It is the default position.

 

Atheism is a fixed, firm belief that God doesn't exist, which is usually not open for discussion.

 

 

We do not suppose a teapot orbiting the sun like "we" suppose a deity.

 

How trite.

 

We have objectively no reason to suppose a deity.

 

I'd disagree. There is overwhelming existence for design. Do you have evidence that nature (natural selection) (which has no IQ) can create hearts, lungs, eyes, and other complex bio-systems, that work interdependently with one another? You can direct me to peer review all you want, but all they propose are "maybe', 'probably", and other speculative stories. There are no proposed pathways that demonstrate these complex systems evolved. Worse than that, these complex systems occur suddenly in the Cambrian strata, with no intermediates to be found.

 

Ockham's razor further requires us to look for the most economical and probable explanation for phenomena.

 

Thanks for the refresher

 

Any religion fails both, the teapot argument and Ockham's razor. Furthermore most religions hold abhorrent social and political views and are usually very reluctant to distance themselves from racism and ethical cleansing or even openly encourage them.

 

Who are you to claim what is abhorrent and immoral, when according to your worldview this doesn't exists?

 

As the great Richard Dawkins said:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference

 

Religions are neither useful for understanding our world nor desirable when it comes to building a sustainable community of equals across the human race.

 

I believe what Christ had taught during his time would refute this.

Edited November 25, 2014 by endlessabyss

[umirano]

Atheism is a fixed, firm belief that God doesn't exist, which is usually not open for discussion.

No, no. Gnostic atheism would be that. I don't know of anyone who says he knows a 100% that the universe does not contain a deity. Like no one should say he knows a 100% that there's no superman in the universe. Objectively there's no way to prove a universal negative. Yet, how many people think there's a chance that superman exists? Essentially believers want us to believe a similarly absurd claim. That there's a superman.

 

 

How trite.

Yet, like with superman, apart from stories we have nothing to go from. That's why the teapot argument is important.

 

I'd disagree. There is overwhelming existence for design. Do you have evidence that nature (natural selection) (which has no IQ) can create hearts, lungs, eyes, and other complex bio-systems,

Organs aren't created, that's where you go wrong. What we see today is just what is left after all those "lungs" and "hearts" that didn't work died out.

 

that work interdependently with one another? You can direct me to peer review all you want,

Peer review is not so much a source of knowledge as it is a technique to assert quality research.

 

but all they propose are "maybe', 'probably", and other speculative stories.

Say people who want me to believe in winged horses, talking snakes, people in living in whale intestines and walls crumbling from instrumental sounds? Hear hear...

 

There are no proposed pathways that demonstrate these complex systems evolved. Worse than that, these complex systems occur suddenly in the Cambrian strata, with no intermediates to be found.

 

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology

 

There are plenty of very well explained pathways.

 

Who are you to claim what is abhorrent and immoral, when according to your worldview this doesn't exists?

What doesn't exist according to my worldview?

 

I believe what Christ had taught during his time would refute this.

Christ taught that the old testament is true and to be obeyed letter by letter. Enough said for any person with a splinter of compassion in their hearts. Oh, and he said he'd come to drive apart daughter and mother. And a few other nice things.

 

The bible made the theological foundation for the subjugation of many regions outside Europe to christian rule. The idea that those peoples needed christ cost millions of lives and ended hundreds of civilizations. In Syria so far close to 300'000 people died because of the expansionist, authoritarian ideology that one religion is. The fear injected into people's minds prevents women from seeking help and creates anxious psychological wrecks every day for mundane things like masturbation or wanting to experience sex. Religion is damaging to a civil, peaceful humanity.

Edited November 25, 2014 by umirano

[M30USA]

Religion is damaging to a civil, peaceful humanity.

Humans are damaging to a civil, peaceful humanity. Religion is only harmful when it's founded upon untruth and promoted by corrupt people. Edited November 26, 2014 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[endlessabyss]

I won't go on refuting each point. It's a worthless discussion, an impasse if you will.

 

 

Your beef seems to be with religion. Like I said, God and religion are autonomous.

 

 

I'd just like to clarify one more thing, religion hasn't been the only ideology/institution that has caused injustice/suffering. Science has been used to create injustice, as well as atheism:

 

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.169?journalCode=soc

 

Winant and Howard demonstrate how racism began with the advent of the sciences that took off in the 19th century. The biological classification of differences are what initially caused the radical spread of racism during that thime, and subsequently people reconstructed their theological beliefs to fit this paradigm for evil purposes. This is just one example of how an institution, separate of religion, has caused damage to human progress.

 

Communism is inherently atheistic, and look at all the damage that system created.

 

It's not really the ideologies in themselves; it's people who pervert ideas for their own agenda. This is why I believe humans to be inherently evil.

Edited November 25, 2014 by endlessabyss

[BC1980]

I can give my own testimony of an example in my life where I believe God controls everything. Of course the readers can take and interpret it differently and some probably will and that's fine because I know what I have experienced.

 

Back in 2012 I began to see the first manifestations of cancer in my body with a swollen lump on my neck. It was in late March that I first noticed it. Now at that time I wasn't thinking cancer. I was thinking I just had an upper respiratory infection because lymph nodes can swell in the neck.

 

I will try to make this short but fast forward to June the lump was still there. Nothing was going away. I started to lose weight without trying and getting body aches and coughing. These are all the typical symptoms of lymphoma cancer.

 

So it was in June when I decided it is time to see a doctor but I did not have any insurance. So for about a week or so I shopped around for private insurance. I called some companies but never got a call back. Then I just decided to take a break from it all.

 

I was also still not feeling well so I said just this one time doctor visit I can pay out of my own pocket because I had money in my savings account. I went to go see a doctor locally who looked at my neck but then said he would have to order more tests. He excused himself and left the room. A few minutes later a financial worker came in the room and asked questions to confirm that I have no insurance and that I can only pay out of pocket.

 

So anyway she talked to me about a free clinic and where it is located and that she does volunteer work there on the side and she said she would probably be able to get me set up with the clinic and enroll me as a patient and then I wouldn't have to pay for any of the tests. They just needed some proof that my income is low enough for me to be eligible for the free clinic.

 

Then 4-5 days later I get a call from another volunteer at the free clinic and set me up for an appointment to be screened for eligibility. She went over with me the relevant documents and tax information I would need to bring.

 

So July 3rd I go for the appointment and I pass their eligibility criteria and they issue me a patient card. By July 17th I have my first doctor checkup and they really moved swiftly and stepped up things with ordering blood work and cat scans and by July 20th that's when they refer me to the emergency room because I had a big blood clot in my vena cava from the cancer and thats why I had been coughing. It was a Friday morning and that turned into a 2 week hospital stay.

 

They said I could have died any moment or been paralyzed from a stroke if they did not catch the blood clot.

 

Well during that 2 week hospital stay I finally get call backs on my cell phone from a company inquiring about my interest in buying private insurance. I told them that won't be necessary now.

 

The free clinic I go has paid for all my medical expenses. They do not take patients with health insurance. So in hindsight I believe something was holding me back from being more aggressive with shopping for health insurance and that's why I took a break from shopping. And probably God blocked the doors for me to receive calls from them. I would not have been eligible for the free clinic and I would still be paying alot of out of pocket costs today if I had insurance because cancer care is very expensive.

 

I did not know free clinics existed and they came looking for me. I did not look for them. Heck even my Dad was willing to help out and he told me he was on the verge of mortgaging his house to help me out. But none of that was necessary. The Lord did a sovereign work in these volunteers to take me in and make the process easy. They seemed happy to take me in as a patient. The timing of events was just right and only God knew the serious extent of what was wrong with me before I or any of the doctors knew. God knew that private insurance would not do me any good on my salary to treat the condition I have.

 

Furthermore who knows how long I am going to live anyway. I might have been throwing away alot of money for nothing.

 

The problem is that you can't prove God had a hand in any of what you just mentioned. There is no way to prove, objectively, that God was behind anything that happened to you. Of course, there is no way to disprove it either. Working in health care, I could give you countless examples that mimic your and countless examples that do not turn out as well.

 

After working in health care, I lean more towards the idea that God has very little to say about our daily lives. I think that He is certainly capable of intervening, but it's difficult for me to believe that He does intervene. It all seems to be random chance.

[M30USA]

The problem is that you can't prove God had a hand in any of what you just mentioned. There is no way to prove, objectively, that God was behind anything that happened to you. Of course, there is no way to disprove it either. Working in health care, I could give you countless examples that mimic your and countless examples that do not turn out as well.

 

After working in health care, I lean more towards the idea that God has very little to say about our daily lives. I think that He is certainly capable of intervening, but it's difficult for me to believe that He does intervene. It all seems to be random chance.

 

How about this:

 

Things are what they are, independent of our perceptions. Chance and fate are merely product of perception. It's best to say that there is a God, but he does what he does and that's the end of story.

[BC1980]

How about this:

 

Things are what they are, independent of our perceptions. Chance and fate are merely product of perception. It's best to say that there is a God, but he does what he does and that's the end of story.

 

I definitely agree with that.

[umirano]

It's best to say that there is a God, but he does what he does and that's the end of story.

 

"end of story", a very religious thing to say, after all every single religion has the ultimate truth without a shred of investigation. Religere, lat. to rely. No critical thinking, just relying on what a supposed authority says.

 

And, no, it is not in any way 'best' to say there is a god. The default position is that there's no god. Like the default position is to say that there's no super man and no zeus and no santa claus outside of man made fiction of various sorts.

 

I find it very hard to understand why anyone would disagree what the default position on any existence claim is, or in other words, why they'd want an exception to the default position that they take on any other existence claim outside of their religious worldview.

 

Do believers here agree that existence claims in all religions are logically equivalent? I'm talking about logical equivalence, not about reliability or verifiability of claims of different religions (which I see at zero), so spare me the prose, if you can.

[pie2]

Do believers here agree that existence claims in all religions are logically equivalent?

 

Not me.

 

I'm talking about logical equivalence, not about reliability or verifiability of claims of different religions (which I see at zero), so spare me the prose, if you can.

 

How can you assign logical equivalence without considering reliability or verifiability? Can you explain more what you mean?

 

As you know, Bart Ehrman has had a profound impact on the way I look at Christianity, but I can feel myself slowly being brought back to the Christian position.

 

This is the best thing I've read all day.

 

[M30USA]

"end of story", a very religious thing to say, after all every single religion has the ultimate truth without a shred of investigation. Religere, lat. to rely. No critical thinking, just relying on what a supposed authority says.

 

Yep, you guessed it. I don't use my mental faculties. I don't evaluate information. How'd you guess? (FYI, anyone who knows me on this forum knows my views on lots of things are rather non-traditional and hardly rely on human authority--key word "human".)

 

And, no, it is not in any way 'best' to say there is a god. The default position is that there's no god. Like the default position is to say that there's no super man and no zeus and no santa claus outside of man made fiction of various sorts.

Is that so? Then you defy what some of the greatest philosophers in history have said: that neither being nor not-being is the default starting point. Both existence and non-existence are claims which equally require logical argument. Sorry, your view doesn't get a free pass here and you can't put the burden of proof on everyone's views except your own. That is literally a bar against all evidence and mental suicide on your part.

 

Something to consider: in criminal court, don't they often attempt to prove a negative? As in, don't they try to prove that a person DID NOT do something like commit a murder? So they look for alibis to say such and such a person could not have done it because he was not there at that time. In similar fashion, you, my friend, must prove to us that God does NOT exist. Otherwise, you are committing a fundamental logical error: assuming at the outset that what you are saying is true (that God doesn't exist) before you even start to argue it.

Edited December 4, 2014 by M30USA

[umirano]

How can you assign logical equivalence without considering reliability or verifiability? Can you explain more what you mean?

 

Logical equivalence addresses whether two statements amount to the same (logical) consequences.

 

statement 1: god A exists ^ no other gods exist

statement 2: god B exists ^ no other gods exist

And obviously we have A != B. '!=' means unequal, or different, and '^' signifies the logical 'and', meaning lhs and rhs are true if the whole statement is true.

 

Those are the claims of any two (monotheistic) religions A and B, two non-compatible existence claims that is.

 

They are logically equivalent because the statements are deemed true by all believers of a particular monotheistic religion X for god X, X E {A,B}. Obviously you can do the same thing for more than two monotheistic and even polytheistic religions, because A_mono != {U,V,W}_poly

 

In essence, all religious claims are mutually incompatible. Whether they are of mono- or polytheistic nature does not matter. They are all equally badly sourced and verified.

 

My question was why the (mostly christian) believers in here think that their particular religion is even the slightest bit more credible than any other, given the claims are so similar and the evidence is equally weak as that of any given religion of competition.

[umirano]

my views on lots of things are rather non-traditional and hardly rely on human authority--key word "human".)

Your religiosity tells me otherwise.

 

Is that so? Then you defy what some of the greatest philosophers in history have said: that neither being nor not-being is the default starting point.

That is ridiculous. We're not debating the existence of Berlin, or of oranges in Florida. We are not on the fence on a great number of things. Most people are not on the fence on whether superman exists. You are not on the fence whether Allah exists as the one and only god as he is ultimatively and completely described in the koran. Of course no one is really following the view that all things are equally likely to exist or not to exist.

 

Something to consider: in criminal court, don't they often attempt to prove a negative?

 

1. Innocent until proven guilty. Again, those making the claim (A is a murderer!) have to back their claim up. The law requires no one to prove his innocence
   
2. Just because sometimes it's very easy to prove that someone simply can't be the murderer it doesn't mean that that's what every suspect has to - or even can - do
   

 

fashion, you, my friend, must prove to us that God does NOT exist.

Prove to me that Zeus does not exist!

 

It's beautiful what you did here. You give me an opportunity to explain why courts and science, and successful business btw, work in a completely different manner: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If your neighbor tells you he needs your help to unearth a diamond of the size of a swimming pool you will likely ask him to back up his existence claim with something very credible, before you start digging a deep hole. Am I right?

 

What you did by asking me to prove that god doesn't exist, and with your court example, is to ask me to disprove your claim. It never works like that. No one disproved the theory of the Ether, it was just never found, it has no value as an explanation for physical phenomena. The theory that being possessed by the devil causes fever wasn't disproven. It's just completely irrelevant in medicine. No one disproved the theory of a flat earth. It just turned out that the earth is spheric (and Eratosthenes determined this as early as 250 BC).

 

Otherwise, you are committing a fundamental logical error: assuming at the outset that what you are saying is true (that God doesn't exist) before you even start to argue it.

Superman doesn't exist, do you agree? I say all your reasons for god's existence are

 

• baseless
  
• logically incoherent
  
• resembling other myths in a striking manner (which comes as no surprise if gods are indeed a man made fiction)
  
• appealing to basic human emotions (see above)
  
• designed to trick the mind of the uncritical (marketing, very human)
  

 

It is thus a pretty safe bet to assume there's no god. And if there's a god, it has nothing to do with what you (and all other believers) deem to be relevant and accurate descriptions of god. Thus it is a safe bet to ignore all currently existing religious claims.

 

In everyday language we say "god doesn't exist". What we mean is that the existence claims for the gods of the currently existing religions have no real world evidence to back them up. It doesn't mean I can prove that nowhere in the whole universe none of those gods exists.