There is no evidence for God

With respect, all I'm doing is quoting the bible as much as I can. If you disagree, you're disagreeing with what it says. You were joking about heresy earlier. But what do you expect if you just follow your own ideas because the truths in the bible are tough to swallow? You know, truths like, we're sinners, destined for destruction; wide is the path that leads to destruction, and many pass along it, as Jesus said. God loves us, but not because we deserve it.

As for why God made the universe, I recognise what you're saying, but I do think that's a very man-centric view of things, when the bible clearly talks about God creating things for himself (Colossians 1:16 and elsewhere). This includes doing it for his own glory, demonstrating his attributes. What you say also sounds very close to God depending on man, whereas it is the other way around. You may want to google this concept called "the aseity of God" - it's about how God relies on nothing outside of himself. He does not need us, he does not need our love, he does not owe anything to anybody.
On one hand, you're right, God wants people to love him, and to be in his presence. He wants people to recognise who he is, and he's the greatest thing in existence, so that's quite a gift he's offering to mankind. We take pleasure from our relationship with God, yet, he takes pleasure from us taking pleasure (and vice-versa perhaps... such is the nature of relationship).
On the other hand, he knew about sin, death and suffering before he even made the universe (I recognise the word 'before' doesn't really work when we're talking about a knowledge outside of space-time, but who can fathom that?). God knew that Jesus would have to become a man and suffer the way he did. Therefore it must have all been a part of his plan. He did it ultimately for his own pleasure.



Well the bible says "the wages of sin is death". It says that before we know Christ, we are dead in our sins. Now, the specific details of death/hell (whether it's eternal conscious torment, or something else) are not clear, but what is clear is that the bible claims that we do deserve it.

We avoid death, not because of our own good deeds (Romans 3:10 says "nobody is good, no not one, no one seeks after God", but because we believe in Jesus. Our sin is imputed to Christ, his righteousness imputed to us. Our salvation is a gift, not something deserved. In heaven, nobody will be able to say to God "thanks for giving your son, but I earned my place here..."
No you didn't. God provided so that you could be there. Otherwise you would not be in the presence of a truly holy God.

"But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
"This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

You had to believe in the big bang theory?
Oh well that explains a lot...

And by your logic it is fine to be racist as long as you don't act out.

It is a perfectly legitimate belief according to you.

You do realize the Big Bang Theory was proposed by a priest, ie a believer, right?

There's no necessary contradiction between that and God.

Well you learn something everyday...

Yes. Hopefully one day you will learn that your personal God probably doesn't exist.

Appeal to ignorance.
If a person has provided evidence, then would it not be proper for said person to ask a skeptic why they are skeptical?

In which case the skeptic could explain why they say, "I do not believe your claim."

Otherwise, can you prove to me that you nor I are experiencing a world that does not exist due to stimulation of the brain?

That is to say, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by use of empirical evidence (the evidence which I presume you are referring to).

Oh yeah by the way, God exists...

It's not an appeal to ignorance, it's the burden of proof. Yes, sceptics do say that because none of the so-called evidence theists provide is convincing in the slightest.

Oh yeah by the way, God doesn't exist...

That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance..

If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist

You have made claim, may you provide your support?

That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.

That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.

Not so. Atheists by and large do not make the positive claim that no god exists, rather that they lack a belief in God due to lack of evidence. Most atheists readily admit that they would convert if presented with sufficient and convincing evidence.

Try reading things in context. I was parodying the baseless certainty of other poster's comment.

However, it can reasonably argued that the gods of the Quran and Bible do not exist because certain claims made within those books are demonstrably untrue.

You seem to misunderstand the concepts here. Atheists claim that, because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god, then there is no reason to believe that there is.

"Argument from ignorance" only applies when making a positive claim, ie. you cannot claim god's existence because there is no evidence of his non-existence.

The atheist is merely saying that if something is not there, it is reasonable to assume that it is not there until there is some evidence that it is there. It would be ridiculous to expect us to accept every spurious and unsupported claim until it has been proved untrue!

Atheism and agnosticism are two separate concepts. They are not different points on the same scale. One is a qualifier of the other. Don't worry, it is a very common mistake, even among atheists!
Personally, I am a gnostic atheist, but an agnostic adeist.
You sound like a gnostic theist.

So why do people still believe in God?

there is no evidence that god does not exist.

There is also no evidence that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

I can't provide evidence that there is a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.


But can you provide me evidence that there isn't a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.

If neither can provide evidence who is right?

If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition. It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.

Is this not the definition?
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

What is the difference between agnostic or atheist if both just lack belief? There would have to be some assertion.

If anyone were to be open to the existence of a thing (in this case deity) then they would be neutral. Atheism has never been neutral.