Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Dr.Who]

The same logic to disprove santa can be used to disprove god, there is no differance.

I agree the same logic can be used. At this point neither the existence of Santa nor the existence of God is disproved using that logic.

As a corollary another logical argument could be used to prove the existence of both. A person only needs to see, hear, touch, etc. either Santa or God for him to have all he needs to believe. Most important here, the experience of one is independent of the experience of the other. If I do not experience Santa that in no way helps me to know if I have or have not experienced God. This is why the analogy first given falls apart.

Proving or disproving god is senseless, in your mind faith convinces you that god is the only answer to that which you cannot explain.

How do you know what is in my mind? Maybe you read some of my posts? If so then you would know that I personally have not based my belief in the existence of God on faith. Many people do but I have been unlucky enough to have had empirical experience with God which renders faith less important on that score at least.

There is no proof that God was or was not created at a certain time by a certain person, the current set of beliefs that are held by the differing faiths are just logical enhancements added over the years for political or scientific reasons.

In the same breath you say there IS no proof that God was created but you expound your statement that the beliefs of various religious groups IS created for political or scientific reasons.

Just because I don't have the answer, doesn't mean god is the answer. Why would I care if you believe in god and I do not? Why would you care?

I would agree that if you don't have the answer God is not necessarily the answer - depending on what the question is.

If you believe there is no God I would expect you would not want to see people waste their time believing in that which does not exist out of compassion*. If one did believe in God I would expect that you would not want to see people fail to have a loving relationship with that God out of compassion. If you do not know I would expect you to experience a fellowship with others who are searching like you.

*unless atheism leads one to accept a nihilism which logically makes compassion equally negated and without meaning.

 

[clarkatticus]

I look at religious zealotry the same as a drug addict looks at his addiction. He wants everyone to be an addict so they are all on his level, thus validating his lifestyle. People who don't use drugs are an enemy at worse, or someone who can do nothing for them and even hold them in (mutual) derision otherwise. Religion to me is only an occasional issue, I try to skirt it in face to face meeting to avoid conflict and only comment on it here to show how benign atheism is. I have no bone to pick, I wish no harm or loss of rights, I will not infect your children or cause evil, I just will be a contributing member of this society and demand the same rights.

 

[Dr.Who]

I look at religious zealotry the same as a drug addict looks at his addiction. He wants everyone to be an addict so they are all on his level, thus validating his lifestyle. People who don't use drugs are an enemy at worse, or someone who can do nothing for them and even hold them in (mutual) derision otherwise.

Well, that's a paradigm. What do we know about paradigms?

 

[clarkatticus]

a paradigm is a pattern, model or example. I assume you mean example. I read Marx and Engles the same year I read Hegel. In all their theories I remember they got two things right, 1-There will be friction between labor and business (duh), and 2-Religion is the opiate of the masses. Right now the right uses religion as a polarizing issue to divide the electorate, they will pay for it this election come super Tuesday.

 

[bododie]

Latinos are on track to become a majority in the U.S. Catholic Church — already more than 50 percent of American Catholics younger than 25 are Latino. Thirty-five percent of Catholics were Latino in the 2000 census, and Hispanics comprise 71 percent of Catholic population growth since 1960, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops...

“The Latin presence is a blessing for this country,” San Antonio Archbishop José H. Gomez, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Cultural Diversity, told Our Sunday Visitor. “It is really a blessing that somehow, for whatever economic or cultural reasons, the Latinos are present in the Catholic Church in the United States. They will renew the spirituality and the faith in the United States.”

About 70 percent of the 47 million Hispanics in the United States are Catholic. “It often goes unnoticed that the proportion of Catholics in the world residing in Latin America is larger than the proportion of Catholics who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino/a in the United States,” Gray said on his blog. “Catholics in Latin America will likely become a majority of the global Catholic population before a majority of Catholics in the United States self-identify as Hispanic or Latino/a.”

...The Church needs to evangelize Hispanics.[/QUOTE]

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/5705/Latino-Catholics-soon-to-be-majority-of-Church.aspx

Just wanted to offer libs support in their ideology that "Christianity" is an American right wing GOP conspiracy to take over your life.

 

[PLC1]

...The Church needs to evangelize Hispanics.[/QUOTE]

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/5705/Latino-Catholics-soon-to-be-majority-of-Church.aspx

Just wanted to offer libs support in their ideology that "Christianity" is an American right wing GOP conspiracy to take over your life.

I'm not sure that "libs" have believed that since born again Jimmy Carter. probably, not before that even.

 

[bododie]

I'm not sure that "libs" have believed that since born again Jimmy Carter

Lol. Jimmy Carter born again. Didn't get it right this time either...

I think you are wrong. We'll see.

 

[Dr.Who]

a paradigm is a pattern, model or example. I assume you mean example. I read Marx and Engles the same year I read Hegel. In all their theories I remember they got two things right, 1-There will be friction between labor and business (duh), and 2-Religion is the opiate of the masses. Right now the right uses religion as a polarizing issue to divide the electorate, they will pay for it this election come super Tuesday.

You are correct. Using the same wiki article it is the structure of how we think about things, shaping the way we look at things, and even determining the very questions we ask. When one is thinking inside the box they are acting according to their paradigms. When one thinks outside the box one is allowing themselves not to be stuck in a paradigm. Sometimes one paradigm is very popular but over time it is replaced by a new paradigm. This is called a paradigm shift. Neither is right or wrong but as time goes on a transition occurs that hopefully results in paradigms that are more useful for asking the right questions to arrive at truth.

The danger of paradigms is that one might not ask the right questions and therefore not arrive at the best answers.

 

[clarkatticus]

You are correct. Using the same wiki article it is the structure of how we think about things, shaping the way we look at things, and even determining the very questions we ask. When one is thinking inside the box they are acting according to their paradigms. When one thinks outside the box one is allowing themselves not to be stuck in a paradigm. Sometimes one paradigm is very popular but over time it is replaced by a new paradigm. This is called a paradigm shift. Neither is right or wrong but as time goes on a transition occurs that hopefully results in paradigms that are more useful for asking the right questions to arrive at truth.

The danger of paradigms is that one might not ask the right questions and therefore not arrive at the best answers.

I agree, the most important action to take in confronting a paradym, or any other problem requiring data input is not the answer but asking the right question to obtain the right answer.

 

[kowalskil]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

I do not know anyone who claims that God does not exist as a "spiritual entity."

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
.

 

[ProudLefty]

God doesn't exist, and never did.
Unicorns don't exist, and never did.

Neither statement can be disproved.

I know people who sincerely believe both lived, and still live.

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

God doesn't exist, and never did.
Unicorns don't exist, and never did.

Neither statement can be disproved.

I know people who sincerely believe both lived, and still live.

That's rather begging the question.

The contention here is whether or not God is, in fact, a fictional creation (like unicorns) or not.

There are plenty of arguments that suggest His existence is not only real but positively necessary.

 

[ProudLefty]

That's rather begging the question.

The contention here is whether or not God is, in fact, a fictional creation (like unicorns) or not.

There are plenty of arguments that suggest His existence is not only real but positively necessary.

I agree that there are a great many attempts to prove His existence is not only real but positively necessary.

Are you aware of any arguments which are not fatally flawed?

 

[ThisTooShallPass]

I agree that there are a great many attempts to prove His existence is not only real but positively necessary.

Are you aware of any arguments which are not fatally flawed?

I have been waiting patiently for a week or so for someone to demonstrate the flaw in the Unmoved Mover or First Cause arguments.

 

[Openmind]

I have been waiting patiently for a week or so for someone to demonstrate the flaw in the Unmoved Mover or First Cause arguments.

I don't think many people reject those two arguments.
The difference between (what appears to be ) your beliefs and those arguments is that you attribute the image of a CHRISTIAN God, and that only to those arguments.

If one believe in the unmoved mover, it certainly doesn't mean one must believe in the literal world of the Bible, the New Testament, or that ONLY a religion recognizing the Christian God is correct.

In fact, I would argue that such a belief would be a limitation on the unmoved mover argument.