Atheists what is your proof?

[jpappl]

Jan,

You have already admitted that you don't have evidence of god.

So why are you trying to get us to accept that there is evidence ? That we are just not looking in the right places to find it.

When you don't know where it is either. Do you want us to do the work for you ?

And if you forgot.

You don't know god exists why ?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan,

You have already admitted that you don't have evidence of god.

So why are you trying to get us to accept that there is evidence ? That we are just not looking in the right places to find it.

When you don't know where it is either. Do you want us to do the work for you ?

And if you forgot.

You don't know god exists why ?

Regarding evidence, read my last few posts and get
some idea of what i'm asking.

Regarding your last question, i've already given
you an answer.

jan.

 

[glaucon]

You must know what would constitute evidence of God, if you assert
no evidence has been discovered.

Incorrect.
Do spend some time and read up on the nature of "evidence".

So what is the reason behind the assertion 'no evidence has been discovered', if you have no idea of what would constitute evidence?

See above.

What is this "rational course" based on, if it has no idea of what the evidence
would be?

Again, illicit assumptions on your part.
And, again, see above.

Isn't this "rational course" nothing but personal belief?

No.
Research "rationality".

 

[Jan Ardena]

Incorrect.
Do spend some time and read up on the nature of "evidence".




See above.



Again, illicit assumptions on your part.
And, again, see above.



No.
Research "rationality".

Okay, fair enough.


jan.

 

[jpappl]

Regarding evidence, read my last few posts and get
some idea of what i'm asking.

Regarding your last question, i've already given
you an answer.

jan.

Yes, because you have no evidence.

 

[AlexG]

You must know what would constitute evidence of God, if you assert
no evidence has been discovered.

jan.

To my mind, evidence of god would consist of something in the physical universe which in principle, could not be explained by science.

But then, I've said that before, and you are unable to provide such.

Just a lot of irrationality.

Show me something which requires god.

 

[phlogistician]

That's just it. God is that entity that created reality, that created existence - so his "existence" is unlike anything we can comprehend (which is why mankind has been stuck with metaphor in trying to describe him). As to alluding to some attribute of God's elusiveness - I have no idea what you are suggesting. I'm not intending to allude to any attribute, so you are going to have to be more specific. However, your post here seems to confirm my other post. You are refusing to accept a definition for God because it doesn't fit with your understanding of reality.

Here's your problem. I don't believe, and such speculation doesn't appeal to a logical mind. You make this claim that some entity can exist outside what we comprehend of reality, without even offering a mechanism by which it does so. The elusiveness I refer to is the fact that we have not detected God, nor any sign, or evidence for such a being. If this entity can interact with the Universe, there must be an interface and that would present itself into our experience. We haven't found it, and you haven't proposed how this works, so really, your hand waving just makes your theory sound like an apology.

 

[phlogistician]

Dude, look at the breadcrumb. This entire thread is in the RELIGION forum.

Religious subsection on a SCIENCE board.

 

[phlogistician]

sigh,
maybe if I wrote it in caps. I KNOW EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT THAT I DON'T SEE WHAT THE ATHEISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE IS!!!!!

Again you really don't get it. The fact that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology has nothing to do with atheism or the birth of the Universe.

Why don't you stop trying to convolve things and just discuss each separate area on it's own merits, and also, get a new name, because you're giving 'science' a bad name.

 

[Trooper]

Dude, look at the breadcrumb. This entire thread is in the RELIGION forum.

The following rules and guidelines for posting in the Religion forum exist to create and maintain a high standard of interesting and informative debate on the topic of Religion where it intersects science with regard to policy, progress and cultural development as well as the examination of Religion from a scientific standpoint as with the fields of sociology, anthropology, psychology and neurology. Such discussion is expected to be done whilst abiding by relevant laws and general standards of civility and common sense. These guidelines are informed by the desire to create an atmosphere of respect for the different opinions of the many posters to this forum.

At the end of the day, this is a science forum and the scientific perspective and the reasoned perspective will generally be the status quo.

So...

 

[krreagan]

Atheists of sciforums I've been wanting to do this for a long time so please let me. I want to ask you guys what your proof of there being no god is? Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked. At the same time you cannot prove the opposite. Really, what's the harm in believing in Him? By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists? If not, what made you or your parents convert? Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be? (and actually if you think about it doesn't even explain how we came to be, only how we evolved, therefore by definition creation backtracks further than evolution) e.g. I believe creation happened first and then evolution got us to looking like we do now.

Boy, this is full of... hmmm... rantings shall we say?

Where to start... You cannot prove a negative! See the tea pot argument.

Whats the harm in believing... If your god is omnipotent and knows your inner most beliefs, then he knows you are believing just to CYA and not because you actually believe. So how is your moral god going to react to your personal self deception? Based on how he/she/it behaves to other deceptions, I'll guess that you'd go to H-E-double-hockey-sticks anyways!

Personally I was raised by non-religious parents who did not express their atheism until I was in my teens. I don't believe I have ever believed in god, I thought it was extremely silly. My paternal grandparents on the other-hand were very religious and very much bigots/racists. Once while they were visiting I brought my best friend home, who was black, and my grandparents left the house that afternoon to return home 2 days before christmas. they were suppose to stay another week. Years later I found out that it was because my parents refused to keep my friend out of the house while they were staying there. I have seen too much bigoty hidden behind high morals and discised as religious beliefs to have a good view of religions. I have always had a great respect for my father who grew up in this atmosphere (blue collar Detroit) of hate and religious BS, yet he was strong enough to realize this was wrong and never accepted what his parents taught on this subject.

Evolution has nothing to do with atheism! It's just that the religious see evolution as a theory that removes humans from the center of existence (we are not gods special children) so they view it as an attack on religion when it has nothing to do with religion. You are correct that evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, only the development of species from previous life. Abiogenesis is not covered by evolution as well.

KRR

 

[Jan Ardena]

AlexG,

To my mind, evidence of god would consist of something in the physical universe which in principle, could not be explained by science.

Why would it be in physical universe?

Show me something which requires god.

Everything.

jan.

 

[scifes]

To my mind, evidence of god would consist of something in the physical universe which in principle, could not be explained by science.

nothing can't be explained by science.
in other words, you don't know what science is.
if tomorrow flying pixies were discovered, they'd be inserted into the evolutionary chain somewhere as a missing or undiscovered link.
science isn't fixed, it isn't a body of information.
it is the ordering and explanation of what is.

But then, I've said that before, and you are unable to provide such.

Just a lot of irrationality.

Show me something which requires god.

everything can be seen as requiring god.
somethings can ONLY be answered by the existence of a god, some are fundamental questions like the origin of the laws of physics. and others are things we don't yet have an answer to, and since there will be always be things we don't know, there will always be things to explain with god.

lot of irrationality indeed alex.

 

[krreagan]

everything can be seen as requiring god.

Only to those that don't see the irrationality of requiring of something of infinite complexity to explain something of non-infinate complexity!

KRR

 

[AlexG]

nothing can't be explained by science.

For once, you're correct. There is nothing that can't be explained by science.

 

[iceaura]

Ah, but that is the premise of religion - that there is in fact a spritual reality not part of our physical reality.

Not all. Some religious belief holds that spiritual aspects of reality emerge from the physical aspects - as a level, type, or order of pattern, with the physical world as one of the lower level substrates on which other levels of pattern emerge.

Now, whether you like it or not, spacetime (and special relativity) reveal a universe in which the future already exists, along with the past and the present. There is no change. There is no unfolding of time. There is no deterministic universe.

That seems confused. One can travel through time, have events unfold in time, etc - time extends, just as space does. The future does not "already" exist now, any more than distant locations exist here.

I have been trying to describe to both jpappl and spidergoat the manner in which time is integrated into our universe, and it is such that the very term "interact" loses meaning when talking about God.

As does every other human word - such as "created", "outside", "beyond", and "before".

 

[SnakeLord]

To answer the thread starter:

1. Really, what's the harm in believing in Him?

Firstly I can only wonder which 'him' it is that we're talking about. The fact is that there are countless 'hims' (and hers) with which we could equally ask the same question. But such question has no valid basis, it's not about "harm" but about what one is or isn't convinced of the truth of.

2. By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists?

No.

3. If not, what made you or your parents convert?

Flawed question. Should my parents be christian or jewish or muslim or hindu etc, the simple fact of being one of their offspring does not make me any of them. I have personally always been atheist - even through attempts to make me otherwise - hence there was nothing to convert from.

4. Also why do you use the theory of evolution as your backbone to being an atheist when it doesn't explain how the universe came to be?

Who does that? This is a strawman.

Regards,

P.S Oh, as for 'proof' of the non-existence of gods: Outside of mathematics and alcohol, 'proof' is a useless concept. It is a term that is used far too loosely by the common layman, (much like the word 'theory'), and it shouldn't be.

What I can provide by way of argument against the existence of gods, (and we can include extra arguments if you clarify which specific version it is you have in mind), then there are countless that we can get into if you have the time and in a fresh thread.

 

[krazedkat]

I am an atheist (I know you guys may be confused, I used to be a Jew ). I do NOT deny the possibility of a god or deity. I just say that I won't believe it until I see some evidence. The burden of evidence is not on us, but you.

 

[science man]

fine I'll return when I know the physics to understand the argument scientifically.
Goodbye for now.

wait a minute. Does that piece of physics that I don't scientific understand an argument that we happened by chance?

EDIT: omg I just reread the post I'm referring to and see that that is it. Errr AlexG I can't you almost made me stop coming here until I got a degree in physics all because of that!!! That is a ridiculous theory because having an argument of chance over our existence is like arguing that there's a chance of a trillion meteors hitting the Earth at very second. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you?

 

[phlogistician]

wait a minute. Does that piece of physics that I don't scientific understand an argument that we happened by chance?

Which part are you thinking was 'chance'?