Atheists what is your proof?

[phlogistician]

If you have no evidence that God does not exist, your belief
is NOT based on evidence.

jan.

Jan, you talk bollocks in double negatives, and actually just make a circular argument which defeats any point you might be wanting to make.

Let's examine the parts:

if you have no evidence...

OK, so we have no evidence.

your belief is NOT based on evidence.

Well fuck me. You say we have no evidence, and then say we can't base things on no evidence.

Actually, yes we can. We can make perfectly reasonable assumptions based on a complete and utter lack of evidence for a premise.

But this isn't about evidence for atheism. It's about theists providing proof, but yet again you do not grasp that this matter is not a bijection. We do not have to have evidence God does not exists to not believe. You however should be be able to offer some to back up your belief.

No, go see if you can find something, anything, to make belief in God seem reasonable. And try to steer clear of the double negatives, seem you only confuse yourself with those.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Proof that God does not exist? No problem…:mufc:

Hold on. I know I have it here somewhere. It’s filed alphabetically.

Nope, nope...That’s for genies.
Crap...That one is for ghosts.
Shit...Gnomes.
Hold on...I’m almost there. Goblins.

Here we are… Gods.

Okay, which one?

Spoiler

God is imaginary

The one defined as the Supreme Being.


supreme;

1. above all others: greater than or superior to any other, especially above all others in power, authority, rank, status, or skill
holding supreme authority

2. highest in degree: of the greatest or most admirable kind

3. ultimate: greater than any that have gone before, or the greatest possible
the supreme sacrifice

4. in highest degree: in the highest degree or of the most unmitigated kind

jan.

 

[phlogistician]

Secondly, which scripture do you know that does not define attributes and characteristics of God?

I previously asked you to provide the attributes of the God you believed in Jan.

You were dishonest and failed to do so despite repeated requests.

As you have brought the matter up again, would you care to tell us what attributes YOU think God has.

Tell us your PERSONAL view, do not link to scripture, or attempt this by inference, but list the attributes.

Then we can discuss the attributes.

 

[Trooper]

Secondly, which scripture do you know that does not define attributes and characteristics of God? The bible goes some way to define God.
So while it is not evidence, at least we have a little understanding of God.

• God Is Gracious
• God Is Self-Sufficient
• God Is Wise
• God Is Incomprehensible
• God Is Self-Existent
• God Is Faithful
• God Is Merciful
• God Is Good
• God Is Longsuffering
• God Is Free
• God is Love

Just don’t piss him off because he is also jealous, easily angered, and torturous. He’ll order you to be raped, beaten, robbed, and even killed. Then to top it off, he’ll make you suffer for eternity, in a place too terrible to even imagine.

But don’t hold that against him because he has sufficient reasons. You see, he even created evil and he permits it to exist.
Why, because he has sufficient reasons. Isn't the right, Jan? :crazy:

God: Divine Good or Divine Evil?

 

[Stryder]

Considering the infinite spectrum of bunk that "believers" pile onto a ever increasing meaning to "what god is", it's usually reasoned that it's much like homoeopathy, there is only so much watering down that can occur before you don't have what you started with.

 

[Moran]

For some god trully exist, only he is not divine neither can he perform any miracle save for turning grass into milk. That is God the Cow for you. The Hindus were not that far off.

 

[gmilam]

Firstly, what makes you think I'm a christian?

My bad. I ass/u/med when you said scripture, that you were referring to the Bible. If not, then which scripture are you referring to?

Secondly, which scripture do you know that does not define attributes and characteristics of God?

Huh? I'm not sure I understand the question. I can find many "scriptural" references that don't define attributes and characteristics of "God".

i.e. Song Of Solomon 4:5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

And thirdly, please show where these definition contradict each other?

thanky you.

jan.

Once again, huh? What are you trying to say?

 

[spidergoat]

If you have no evidence that God does not exist, your belief
is NOT based on evidence.

jan.

You have no evidence in the first place. It's more extraordinary that a God exist than not, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. There are numerous things that one can not prove don't exist, a flying spaghetti monster, a celestial teapot. For it to be a rational hypothesis, it must have the ability to be falsified. Since you can always define God in a way that is outside the realm of proof, (because there is no accepted definition) it's is a worthless concept.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Trooper,

Proof that God does not exist? No problem…

Still waiting......

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

The statement that "God works in mysterious ways" means that the hypothesis makes no predictions. Therefore it cannot be falsified and therefore can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

You have no evidence in the first place.

That's partly my point.

It's more extraordinary that a God exist than not, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist.

It depends on who you ask.

There are numerous things that one can not prove don't exist, a flying spaghetti monster, a celestial teapot.

Only because we believe they don't exist.
To know for a fact they don't, we have to know everything.
You will also fing that it is the MAJORITY which don't believe in
a FSP or CT.

For it to be a rational hypothesis, it must have the ability to be falsified. Since you can always define God in a way that is outside the realm of proof, (because there is no accepted definition) it's is a worthless concept.

God is defined as the Supreme Being, the creator of the material world.
So to ask scientists to lead the way in finding out whether God exists, is like asking a hairdresser to explain the finer details of the brain.
That's just the way it is.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

gmilam,

My bad. I ass/u/med when you said scripture, that you were referring to the Bible. If not, then which scripture are you referring to?

What other bad assumption do you make regarding God, without thinking?

Huh? I'm not sure I understand the question. I can find many "scriptural" references that don't define attributes and characteristics of "God".

i.e. Song Of Solomon 4:5 Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies.

Use your brain and find the parts where God is defined.

Once angain, huh? What are you trying to say?

One thing at a time.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I previously asked you to provide the attributes of the God you believed in Jan.

You were dishonest and failed to do so despite repeated requests.

As you have brought the matter up again, would you care to tell us what attributes YOU think God has.

Tell us your PERSONAL view, do not link to scripture, or attempt this by inference, but list the attributes.

Then we can discuss the attributes.

My personal view would be as pointless as your view.
I go by the scripture.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Considering the infinite spectrum of bunk that "believers" pile onto a ever increasing meaning to "what god is", it's usually reasoned that it's much like homoeopathy, there is only so much watering down that can occur before you don't have what you started with.

Then Stryder, let's use this as a basic definition.

God;

supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only god
encarta dictionary


I'm positive this will be accepted by theistic hindus, and sikhs as well.

jan

 

[spidergoat]

That's partly my point.

That there is no evidence for a God? I agree.

It depends on who you ask.

No Jan, evidence is observer-independent.

Only because we believe they don't exist.

No Jan, we cannot prove they don't exist because-

To know for a fact they don't, we have to know everything.

Correct. To prove something doesn't exist with absolute certainty, we need absolute knowledge, which we will never have. Thus making your question rather absurd. Following your logic, does that make it legitimate to believe anything? I say no, since that opens the door to an infinite variety of unsupported beliefs.

You will also fing that it is the MAJORITY which don't believe in
a FSP or CT.

Irrelevent. The beliefs of the majority do not determine truth. People believe all sorts of things that are considered "common sense" but aren't true.

God is defined as the Supreme Being, the creator of the material world.

When defined in that way, we can ask some questions about this hypothesis. Did the creation of the universe break any physical laws? Meaning, could it have come about through naturalistic means? We find that it didn't break any physical laws, and it could have come about on it's own with no intervention from a devine agent. Furthermore, it opens up the question of where did (an inherently complex) God come from? It is the definition of the most unlikely event in the universe to suggest that a complex creator, with the will, the means, and the plan to create a complex universe, sprang from nothing spontaneously. It is far more likely for simple and undirected things to arise spontaneously, as we can observe today with particle pairs arising and canceling each other out. Complexity cannot happen in the early universe, it was too hot and chaotic. Complexity is like a process of crystalization. That is why we exist now and not 13 billion years ago. The universe needed to cool before complex structures could occur.

So to ask scientists to lead the way in finding out whether God exists, is like asking a hairdresser to explain the finer details of the brain.
That's just the way it is.

What you are admitting is that the idea of God is not logical, in that no rational means of investigation are used in the creation of this theory, or in the defense of this theory. So, it can be dismissed as superstition.

 

[lightgigantic]

You have no evidence in the first place. It's more extraordinary that a God exist than not, since nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist.

kind of like saying because there are no corners in a circle, corners do not exist
:shrug:

There are numerous things that one can not prove don't exist, a flying spaghetti monster, a celestial teapot. For it to be a rational hypothesis, it must have the ability to be falsified. Since you can always define God in a way that is outside the realm of proof, (because there is no accepted definition) it's is a worthless concept.

If you accept the working senses as the arena of falsification for reality, it stands to reason that you don't even come close to elaborating on anything beyond it.

That's why at a certain point even a mundane investigation of the universe fall son its ass ... or for that matter, even a cup of flour.

 

[gmilam]

gmilam,
What other bad assumption do you make regarding God, without thinking?

I made no assumptions about god. I made assumptions about YOU.

Use your brain and find the parts where God is defined.

Then ask me a coherent question

Here's what you asked:

Secondly, which scripture do you know that does not define attributes and characteristics of God?

 

[spidergoat]

God;

supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshipped as the only god
encarta dictionary



jan

This God is much more easily disproved than any other concept of God since it does make predictions.
Does prayer work?
No peer reviewed objective study has ever shown prayer to work.
Are believers more moral and good?
No, they do not have a monopoly on goodness. In fact, religion has made them do terrible things (kill people, start wars, torture innocent people, support Nazism, support slavery, oppose advancements in medicine and science, ect...)
Does the Biblical account reveal a God of morality and goodness?
Not at all, he shows such traits of jealousy and rage that were a human to adopt them, we would call them a narcissistic sociopath.
Is the Universe fine-tuned for human life?
The vast distances and the fact that no other planet in our solar system is suitable for life make it look like an inhospitable place. Even if there were other life out there, the distances make it impossible to have any practical communication.
Is there an after-life?
Science reveals thought come from the physical action of the brain. There can be no thought without the brain, therefore, there is no life after death.


Proof in science is not the same as proof in logic or mathematics. In science, an assertion is considered proved when the evidence in support of it is so strong that the opposite assertion is ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/vstenger/scientific_case_god150106.htm

 

[spidergoat]

kind of like saying because there are no corners in a circle, corners do not exist
:shrug:


If you accept the working senses as the arena of falsification for reality, it stands to reason that you don't even come close to elaborating on anything beyond it.

That's why at a certain point even a mundane investigation of the universe fall son its ass ... or for that matter, even a cup of flour.

I'm not saying God cannot ever exist, just that there is no evidence for it. I think you have to admit there is no evidence for it. It's unreasonable to believe (much less have total faith in) something for which there is no reliable evidence. Go on and believe whatever you want, but know that it is not the product of logic or scientific evidence.

Evidence for anything should be based on the observable, call me crazy. Not the senses of themselves, since they can be fooled. By observation I mean though direct or indirect means, such as tools and telescopes, particle accelerators and quantum tunnelling probes.

 

[jpappl]

Science Man,

Yes, there's no physical proof of Him but that's the only type of proof that's lacked

What is the other proof that you can present ?

At the same time you cannot prove the opposite.

Can you prove that I don't have an invisible elf in my yard.

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

Believing in him ? Do I only have one choice ?

By the way, were your parents or grandparents atheists?

Grandma was catholic.

If not, what made you or your parents convert?

Education

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?

Why do modern educated theists who now believe that evolution is factual try to fit it in with their religion.

They are smart enough to know it's foolish to avoid such evidence, so they either have to find a way for them to work side by side or they have to give up on one of them.

Some religions are not as affected by the theory.

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

It doesn't explain how the universe came to be. Should we just throw our hands up on that one, and say god did it and walk away.

You don't know human nature very well if you believe that's going to happen.