I haven't made one. I stated my position that it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist than to believe he does. That's not a determination of what is true
So your position is that God does not exist? if you don't want to commit to that, simply say you have no answer. Considering you're an Atheist it is clear you have made a stance. If we go back to the OP, there's three options. Either you believe so, do not believe or you simply don't know. Saying you believe it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist as a way to avoid the options doesn't work either, you're still not choosing the option that you don't know and there is no fourth option. You first answered no "in most cases", even though I made no reference to any particular religious idea.
it's a determination of which of two options more aligns with reason.
That will be the point of this thread. As of yet, there's no reason for you or I to believe that it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist. I'm a man of reason, and I cannot say that is anywhere near true.
I went on the use the tooth ferry example to make my point, but you focused on the absurdity of the example rather than the point.
Lol, because I'm not here to compare your absurd perceptions with a solid proposition. If my child asked me if the tooth ferry exists of course I would say no, that's not what I would say about the existence of God. Lets just stay on track with things that make actual sense and are worth considering, aside from that I'm not making the claim there is no evidence for God, to me it's not a real comparison.
I believe there is very good reason to believe God exists, from different angles not just one.
Between three positions, the default position is generally the middle
God exists on the left, I don't know in the middle, God does not exist on the right.
Between two positions there is no middle, so you have to pick one as your default.
The default position is that you have no position, that would be "I don't know".
When it comes to belief, that entails three potential positions (I believe X, I believe not X, I don't hold any belief).
Agree, I thought that's where we were.
But when it comes to how we live our lives, there are only two (I live my life as if there were a god, I live my life as if there were no god's). So when I say 'between the two' I am making reference to the fact that in this case, I have to pick one.
This does not have to be complicated.
How does it lack indication? products are a clear indication of intelligence. Are you saying that you don't believe or see that the universe can be seen as a product of intelligence? you don't see a correlation between the processes that occur within the universe and thought? in any way shape or form? is that correct? tell me what is lacking.
In order to claim X is indicative of Y you need an example of Y. Without an example of Y to compare X to you're just guessing.
First of all, I don't need to guess. I'm sure of my beliefs. What I'm doing with correlation is giving YOU something worth considering for why we are saying God exists. My beliefs are based on a lifetime of observation and experience but I don't expect you to be worried about that. Here, we want to correlate the works of the universe to help you see that they are associated with agency. It's simply a starting point, not proof, not fact, not anything other than a logical thought game to get you from "I don't believe God exists" to "well...maybe there's something worth considering".
Evidence is defined as an indication, and if there is an indication the products of the universe can be correlated with intelligence then there is something to bite...there IS evidence.
So instead of feeding you religious dogma I want it to be clear to you there is sufficient reason to consider God exists. The counter position to this would be to accept that inanimate forces can begin to produce intelligent results as well as animated features without any knowledge involved, and as a matter of interpretation that can also be seen as an absurdity. If I could get you to consider that inanimate forces producing products that correlate with intelligence by themselves is strange to believe, maybe the counter position might seem more appealing.
Now this is not an argument from "design", it's an argument from correlation and function. The design argument falls apart because it gets people to focus on the flaws of the design and look at imperfections. The problem here, is that we are not looking for perfection because this world was created imperfect. Death, decay and spontaneous events will appear imperfect, but they are part of the product. Rather function is more appropriate, and associating processes with thought and mind (intelligence) can barely be avoided.
I don't expect a guy like you to accept it of course, but if I can get you away from such a rigid belief that God just doesn't exist and there's no reason to believe it then it is a step in the right direction.
I'd rather this not be a shoot out honestly because that's usually where it goes, but that we look for good talking points that we can expand on. If I can give you a decent reason to move forward in considering God exists that is what I would be looking for. I think correlation works strongly as a starting point.
But to get to your response, the products of the universe are indicative of intelligence simply by what they produce. They are products of thought and mind, each event serves a particular purpose or outcome. This can be seen in stars, orbits, planetary arrangements, solar systems, ecosystems, evolution, plants, animals, humans ect ect. The final product from the start of the BB until now correlates clearly with what appears to be a product of thought.
We have clear examples of that right in front of our faces.....production requires a producer, construction requires a constructor, buildings require builders, manufacturing requires a manufacturer. Why? because inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves and because there needs to be forethought into bringing about a product that is functional and working.
Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.
