Atheists please answer this

[Joe K.]

Joe K


Joe, how can one provide scientific evidence for something that god does when we can't even prove god exists ?

My whole point was that this question of God is beyond the reach of science. Science is limited and it is a mistake to assume that it encompasses the whole of reality. There are realities outside the boundaries of physical science.

Secondly, it is you, if you believe this to prove that god is guiding it.

You can't do that because you can't prove god exists.

I cannot prove God exists and you cannot prove he does not. This is because of the limitations of the human mind and the limitations of proof. Prove to me you love your mother. Prove to me life is not a gigantic simulation planned by aliens. You can't. Proof is very limited.

Can you prove that I don't have an invisible elf in my pocket ?
Can you prove there is not a invisible alien probe spying on us ?

I didn't think so.

No, I can't prove those things - showing again only the limitations of proof.

My point still stands. When we start to discuss the existence or non-existence of God we leave scienitific proof far behind and enter another dimension of experience entirely.

Prove to me scieintifically it is wrong to lynch a man without a fair trial. You can't. Prove to me Mozrt is better than Elvis. You can't.

 

[Joe K.]

I rather believe in Santa Claus. :worship:
He brought me many gifts and has caused me much happiness.
Unfortunately I grew up and for adults it no longer exists.
Santa did only good things and unite all the children in good faith.
Many children have seen him, what you can not say about your god.

You did not respond to my point. You have no evidence to prove evolution is not the result of God's plan and guidance.

How do you know no one has seen God? Are you privy to the experience of the entire human race?

 

[Joe K.]

I don't need to proof that person wrong. The onus lies on him or her.

If someone states that evoution is guided by God you do not have to prove them wrong, but you cannot claim your opposition is based on scientific proof.

 

[Joe K.]

Additionally there is no evidence that any sapient life form is "guiding" the process.

But no evidence there is not. My point stands.

Evolution is quite real regardless of whether you believe it or not.

If I said "God is real whether you believe it or not" I don't think you would find my argument compelling.

Science shows that belief in God is a psychological phenomenon born of the natural human behaviors of anthropomrphism and relationship hierarchy. Knowledge gained from science also invalidates any human claim of a God

Science has shown nothing of the kind. Your statement is solidlygrounded on air. It is opinion or belief, not fact.

What scientific evidence do you have to show that Jesus did not rise from the dead? None.

 

[Joe K.]

Technically speaking, we can't. That's why certain churches embraced Darwinism, and they say it is the way how God achieves his plans..

Correct,as far as I can see.

 

[Joe K.]

The assertion that God is guiding it is just conjecture. There is no evidence for it.

It's like if I say to someone there is a blue dog running around my neighborhood. That's not entirely impossible, there have been reports of other blue animals (tigers and other felines). But if I don't show them evidence, they've no reason to believe me.

And no evidence against it either. That God is not guiding the process is also conjecture.

 

[Joe K.]

You are demanding the wrong evidence. There is only the logical argument to prove this person wrong.

I am not demanding evidence, I am saying there is none. There is only argument as you say because scientific proof does not go this far. It is too limited.

Science doesn't deal in supernatural explanations and hence any explanation that uses a supernatural explanation violates the dogmas of science and is inherently wrong.

Science doesn't deal in supernatural explanations because of its limitations. The fact that science cannot reach up to a certain thing does not mean that thing cannot exist, as if science were the sole measure of reality. It is not.

Unless God is bound to natural laws in which case he wouldn't be a god to start with.

God is not bound to natural laws, but he can work within them and use them, which he does most of the time (exceptions being very rare, we call them miracles).

About the donkey and evidence, I am not demanding evidence, but 9again) saying there is none.

 

[spidergoat]

I cannot prove that there is no God, but as with most things in science apart from physics and math, proof is not necessary, only to show something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. I can show that beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no God as described in the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition. Such a God is said to be actively involved in this world, changing things, influencing events. If he didn't interact with the physical world, he couldn't change anything. Anything observable is within the realm of science. God is not beyond the reach of science, in fact there have been some science experiments to investigate certain aspects of theism, particularly prayer.

Some evidence that the Christian God does not exist:
1. Prayer doesn't work in rigorously designed studies.
2. Bad things happen to good people.
3. Creationism is false.
4. Religious people aren't any more good than non-religious people.
5. Religious texts are self-contradictory.
6. Religious texts show evidence of being written and rewritten by many authors, in contrast to the myth of their origins.
7. No reliable evidence for miracles.
8. No evidence that religious texts contain knowledge that could not have been known at the time they were written.
9. Religious texts promote immoral behavior.
10.The universe is not fine-tuned for life.

Even the supernatural is within the realm of scientific study. It's just that there isn't any evidence for the supernatural yet.

 

[Joe K.]

The existence of god is unprovable - the furthest we get is probablility with a result of highly improbable - or in the case of my own personal lack of belief, I simply dont care if god exists and dont feel its an important question worth spending any time on (I'm an apatheist lol!)

but hey - I'm not concerned in the slightest if someone supports evolution but happens to beleive that it was guided invisibly by a magic sky being who did it in such a subtle way that there was not a single trace of his tampering and instead made it look like the most elegant of natural systems.
In fact if there was a god thats EXACTLY how she would do it.


perhaps - but the door swings both ways - the same can be said for religion

God's existence and non-existence is unprovable by ordinary science and logic. This is because science and logic are very limited and do not come even close to covering the entire range of human experience and higher realities.

 

[Joe K.]

If the Universe does not need a god, to initialize, then "no god" is the foundation axiom to dispute. Not the other way around.

A very big if, totally unsupported by empirical evidence.

 

[Joe K.]

I couldn't resist.

It had to be done anyway, the ignorance in this thread is making my head spin. I don't know why you guys even bother.

My God was nailed to a cross, but he reose from the dead. Where is your God, outside of comic books?

 

[spidergoat]

We do know that the early universe was small, far too small to contain the information necessary for a God to exist, since information is limited by certain physical constraints. Since God is said to be complex, he could not have existed then. He could have come later, as a result of an evolutionary process, but then, that doesn't fit with the mythology.

 

[spidergoat]

My God was nailed to a cross, but he reose from the dead. Where is your God, outside of comic books?

Where is your evidence he rose from the dead? Anecdotal evidence doesn't count, since people are subject to delusions and insanity.

 

[Joe K.]

Let's also say that making threads with titles that call out identity groups for confrontation isn't a good-faith way to go about having a respectful adult conversation.

Confrontation? I asked a serious question in a serious way. If that is too confrontational maybe internet debating is not for you.

 

[Joe K.]

Guess you dont know what an atheist is or you would not have used such an incomprehensible sentence. There is no god.:shrug:

My point was that there is no evidence to refute the claim that God is guiding evolution.

 

[spidergoat]

There is no evidence that God is guiding evolution, thus no logical reason for the claim.

 

[Dywyddyr]

My point was that there is no evidence to refute the claim that God is guiding evolution.

And there's no evidence to refute my claim that the elf living in my kitchen cupboard created your "god".
What's your point?

 

[NMSquirrel]

God is not bound to natural laws,

i like the way you are communicating joe,very informative..cudo's

but he can work within them and use them, which he does most of the time

um..he can work outside them too, only we argue with it and say there is no proof..

 

[Joe K.]

science, just like no one else, can ever answer the big question, "why" but only "how."

Science cannot, but how do you know no one else can?

only observable phenomenon is explained according to the laws we are aware of.

Human emotions are observable phenomenon, at least in so far as we cat on them, and there is no materialistic explanation for human consciousness and personality.

atheism is not wish fulfillment because it never supposes that it knows the 'why'.

It does not have to suppose it knows the 'why'. It can simply say "There is no God because I don't like the idea of God.'

theism is wish fulfillment because it does exactly that; god must be the guiding hand.

Unless there really is a God.

still, it's not a very good answer or really reveals anything with that general idea which is basically it (god) decided it should be this way. we don't know why anything is this way or why we are here or why the universe is this way ad nauseum.

We could know if God decided to reveal it to us.

 

[Joe K.]

That God created matter and scientific laws and got the whole thing started does not conflict with any known scientific evidence or law.

What is the evidence?

The evidence is that you cannot provide any scientific law showing God could not have created things. My evidence is your lack of evidence.