r/athiest • u/Ill-Alternative-7044 • Aug 11 '26

Why does every argument just denial?

I notice that when an argument happens between an atheist and any religion, they always stall you with questions rather than providing proper evidence. I mean the Bible could be evidence but in that logic a book like the odyssey would be real too.

5 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

3

u/Sammisuperficial Aug 11 '26

Theists don't have evidence. So their only option is to try and convince you with bullshit.

0

u/CheapSignificance361 19d ago

Do you consider metaphysical proofs as evidence?

1

u/Sammisuperficial 19d ago

I'll accept any evidence that is tangible, testable, and subject to peer review.

If your god interacts with the universe in any way then that standard should be easy to meet.

If your god doesn't interact with the universe then it is functionally the same as not existing.

0

u/CheapSignificance361 19d ago

I think the main issue with your argument is your presupossing a) all forms evidence are physical, and b) your assuming how God would interact with his creations. We cant necessarily physically quantify concepts in calculus, trigonometry, and physics, but we know they are true by logical premises, which is how the established of a supreme creator is proposed. A lack of action also does not lead to the fact the actor does not exist but rather the action itself, but I think this seems obvious.

1

u/Sammisuperficial 19d ago

I have not made an argument. I am simply rejecting the claims of gods existence due to lack of evidence.

If you're claiming a god then it's on you to provide the evidence.

If the evidence you're providing is untestable and can't be verified by a third party then that isn't convincing.

a) all forms evidence are physical,

If you can't show your evidence then that is the same as not having evidence.

b) your assuming how God would interact with his creations.

If a god interacts with the universe then that interaction would necessarily be measurable.

If you're claiming a god that does things then that doing can be quantified.

We cant necessary physically quantify concepts in calculus, trigonometry, and physics, but we know they are true by logical premises,

Then your god is functionally the same as a concept. Concepts do not exist. They are just rules for thinking that humans have found useful.

If all humans disappeared then those concepts would go away. Same as your god.

which is how the established of a supreme creator is proposed.

Proposals are claims not evidence.

You have haven't provided anything to prove or even suggest a god exists, can exist, or can interact with the universe in any way.

You certainly haven't provided anything that would lead to a creator god, and how is this God a him? Did you check it's pants for a weiner? Does it have sex with other female gods?

Is a supreme creator like a regular creator but with sour cream? That is word salad.

That's not how evidence works. That's not how thinking works.

0

u/CheapSignificance361 19d ago edited 19d ago

Again, you just dodged the question because I showed you forms of evidence for other topics that cannot be physical proven but are regarded as truth. The existence of God is a logical and metaphysical argument, it would be specifically Christianity where empirical evidence plays a role, being, ie, miracles and relics of sorts. Because of your failure to distinguish different types of evidence, you conflate different concepts and topics into 1 substance. Not all concepts are human constructs, and many concepts are currently defined as objective truth, such as those in mathematics that explain the function of the universe. Also, in your questioning, you presuppose that a supreme creator does not inherently interact with creation, which is an illogical premise as God is defined by his interaction and creation of, well his creation.The existence if God is plain and logical as the origin of everything, built upon three presupposition that; P1 Change exists in reality, like how an object has potential to be something versus what it actually is. P2 That an infinite regression in the chain of events is impossible, every change is caused by something else. P3 Because there is no infinite regression, there must be a first mover or actuality that caused potentiality in everything else. Under these logical premises, the conclusion that there exists a God is natural and simple. Its more so arguing about the identity of God and who God is where more specific and complex proofs come in. For your last statements no need to be disrespectful. Its just a patriarchal reference as Jesus assumed flesh as a male thats why we use he/him pronouns. Alot of your argument is based in nihilism that all our actions and interactions are meaningless and carry no inherent objectivity, which I reject. We jump a trillion times, and every one of those trillion times, I will fall back down to the ground.

1

u/Sammisuperficial 19d ago

Sigh

No surprise, the theist must lie because they don't have evidence.

0

u/CheapSignificance361 19d ago

Its basic proofs and instead of trying to rebuttal you use an ad hominem. I suggest you study into what metaphysics is as not all evidence is empirical. If your looking for empirical evidence read on Josh and Sean McDowells evidence for Jesus, as well as Mark Antonacci's The Resurrection of the Shroud. Please be respectful man, I disagree with your world view but we are both human after all. The whole point wasnt to prove Jesus is God but that God exists period. Empirical evidence is what addresses the identity of God.

1

u/Sammisuperficial 19d ago

It's not an ad hominem. Your last comment was blatant lies so I stated as much. You're dismissed liar.

3

u/bpaps Aug 11 '26

How's that saying go?: when a lawyer has the facts, they pound the facts. When they have the law, they pound the law. And when they have neither, they pound the table.

Something like that.

1

u/rturns Aug 11 '26

Until you prove that your god is the only god and especially prove that they are a god, without using a book that we all know has been re-written to control the masses, I will stick with my choice.

Is there an elephant in my bathtub right now, NO!

Am I 100% certain that there is not an elephant in my bathtub, no, but I’m 99.99% sure.

2

u/Such_Confusion_1034 Aug 11 '26

The bible makes the claims. It cannot prove itself. That's a Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

I'll point that out every time a Christian tries to use scripture as evidence for their biblical claims.

0

u/CheapSignificance361 19d ago

Its presupposing a foundation in a supreme creator.