Prove that God doesn't exist.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

If God actually existed, then he could, if he wanted, make himself avaliable for scientific study. However, he would be infinite and incontingent.

I don't see how you can be so obsessed with science and still get your kicks out of following religion.

You don't know that nothingness can't exist, you don't know what happens after you die, you don't know what is out there on the far stretches of the universe. You just like to think you do.

"nothingness can't exist"???

 

[numinus]

If God actually existed, then he could, if he wanted, make himself avaliable for scientific study. However, he would be infinite and incontingent.

He is available for logical inquiry. Haven't you been paying attention?

I don't see how you can be so obsessed with science and still get your kicks out of following religion.

Who says I'm obsessed with science or religion?

My 'obsession' - as you point out - is my inability to suffer opinions not based on facts and logic gracefully.

Opinions are like anal passages - everyone has one, but few can bear close scrutiny.

You don't know that nothingness can't exist, you don't know what happens after you die, you don't know what is out there on the far stretches of the universe. You just like to think you do.

Then you wouldn't have a problem pointing out to an absolute physical nothingness, would you?

Even vacuum can't be called nothing, fyi.

 

[9sublime]

He is available for logical inquiry. Haven't you been paying attention?

I'll believe it when I see it.

Who says I'm obsessed with science or religion?

My 'obsession' - as you point out - is my inability to suffer opinions not based on facts and logic gracefully.

I am not one of these people who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife. I think its quite possible. Its just that I know that organized religion has none of the answers. Howvever, I don't try and prove this using the science we have now, because it just doesn't suffice.

Opinions are like anal passages - everyone has one, but few can bear close scrutiny.

No, your opinions bear very close resemblance to anal passages, they're full of absoloute crap! Not really, I just find you highly overeducated.

Then you wouldn't have a problem pointing out to an absolute physical nothingness, would you?

I don't need to, because I was never trying to prove it. I mean, maybe a black hole? But I'm not sure.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL

You don't see that from the materialist premise of science?

Can you give an example of a scientific phenomenon that is infinite and incontingent?

Sublime thinks you're overeducated, I don't, I think you are using information to obscure the discussion deliberately.

You made the statement, "We all know that the universe is finite and contingent."

When I simply asked you to prove your statement you come back to me with a demand that I prove it wrong. The onus is on the person making the claims, your claims are not automatically true if someone else can't prove them wrong. One of your obscurist tactics is to use a term that sounds like it might be scientifically based, but you never define it. A case in point is "the materialist premise of science". It makes you come across as a pseudo-intellectual using terms without definition so that you can deride people who don't know what you mean.

The fact that I cannot give you an example as you requested in no way proves your initial statement, Num. You draw a lot of conclusions from the "science" that you talk about, but I think you are a bullshipper because your posts obscure rather than enlighten. If you really had a working knowledge of the things you write about and a willingness to share them with others you wouldn't post cryptic one or two sentence replies using terms that are ambiguous. I've been to college, I work with well educated people, most of them like nothing better than to lecture in their field of expertise, many of them will explain in excruciating detail to make themselves understood. Not you though, and that makes me think you are a poser.

 

[numinus]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Have you ever seen your anal passage? But you know its there, don't you.

I am not one of these people who doesn't believe in any form of afterlife. I think its quite possible. Its just that I know that organized religion has none of the answers. Howvever, I don't try and prove this using the science we have now, because it just doesn't suffice.

Neither am I.

Science is inherently limited because it seeks to explain ONLY material phenomenon.

That's what I've been saying forever, it seems.

No, your opinions bear very close resemblance to anal passages, they're full of absoloute crap! Not really, I just find you highly overeducated.

Not at all. I only have a bachelor's degree, just like everyone else.

I don't need to, because I was never trying to prove it. I mean, maybe a black hole? But I'm not sure.

A black hole has lots of mass and gravity. You could hardly call that nothing. Try harder.

 

[numinus]

Sublime thinks you're overeducated, I don't, I think you are using information to obscure the discussion deliberately.

You're entitled to your opinion. I assure you, I'm comfortably secure in my educational attainment.

You made the statement, "We all know that the universe is finite and contingent."

When I simply asked you to prove your statement you come back to me with a demand that I prove it wrong.

Which goes without saying - ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer.

The onus is on the person making the claims, your claims are not automatically true if someone else can't prove them wrong. One of your obscurist tactics is to use a term that sounds like it might be scientifically based, but you never define it.

I did define the words I'm using.

If you are not satisfied with how I defined them, then you are free to google search them all you want.

A case in point is "the materialist premise of science". It makes you come across as a pseudo-intellectual using terms without definition so that you can deride people who don't know what you mean.

All philosophical schools of thought start from a basic premise, correct?

Science is merely a branch of materialist philosophy that operates within the basic premise that material phenomena have ONLY material causes.

Clear?

So my statement is merely an assertion of the scientific method, no?

The fact that I cannot give you an example as you requested in no way proves your initial statement, Num. You draw a lot of conclusions from the "science" that you talk about, but I think you are a bullshipper because your posts obscure rather than enlighten.

What bs am I peddling here?

That everything must have a cause?

That an infinite regress of the causes of material phenomena is impossible?

That at some point, everything must have come from something. And that something is a NECESSARY BEING, as opposed to a CONTINGENT BEING?

This logical process is what democritus used to theorize the atom, fyi. And quantum mechanics proves him right, beyond a doubt.

If you really had a working knowledge of the things you write about and a willingness to share them with others you wouldn't post cryptic one or two sentence replies using terms that are ambiguous.

A working knowledge, you say???

We are in the realm of THEORETICAL PHYSICS and you require a working knowledge of it??!!

Unbelieveable!!!

I've been to college, I work with well educated people, most of them like nothing better than to lecture in their field of expertise, many of them will explain in excruciating detail to make themselves understood. Not you though, and that makes me think you are a poser.

The thing is - it's quite difficult to write equations in this medium. So I make do with the english language to explain something mathematical.

You are free to google what I say and see the equations for yourself, though. That way, you could respond to what I say and not be reduced to attacking my credentials or intentions.

 

[Cookie Parker]

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???

Because man, after hundreds of years, hasn't changed at all.

 

[Cookie Parker]

If God existed, we would have a good world in which to live.

Christ was supposed to be God's son and preached love and compassion and taking care of the poor.

We in the US attack innocent nations, ignore nations in which the poor women and children are being raped and sold into sexual slavery and starve our own people.

No, God doesn't exist. He hasn't made a dent into the hearts of mankind in hundreds of years...if he existed, man would have evolved more after him...instead, man just created God to sit in judgement of others and say of themselves "I'm just human..I sin."

 

[PLC1]

Because man, after hundreds of years, hasn't changed at all.

That is because men die, and brand new men take their places. Meanwhile, where do the dead go? If there is a god, then individuals who have lived their lives in this imperfect world go on to a new life and take with them all that they have learned to that new world and new life. If we apply what we've learned in this imperfect world to the next, think how much better that world would be.

If there really is a life after death, then we need to think in the long term. How much better are you than you were at age 14? At age 21? Just think how much personal progress you have achieved in just a few years, then ask yourself the question:

Where will you be in another million years?

Perhaps there is a reason why this world is imperfect. It is a place of learning.

 

[9sublime]

Have you ever seen your anal passage? But you know its there, don't you.

My fingers? Or a mirror? Or I could cut open a body? Or I could feel the brown stuff squeeze through it as I sit on the crapper?

Neither am I.

Science is inherently limited because it seeks to explain ONLY material phenomenon.

That's what I've been saying forever, it seems.

Well, you are not able to prove God's existence then, just some creating force surely?

Not at all. I only have a bachelor's degree, just like everyone else.

Regardless, psuedo-intellectualism I suspect (and yes, I've probably spelt that wrong )

A black hole has lots of mass and gravity. You could hardly call that nothing. Try harder.

Outside the boundaries of the universe?

 

[numinus]

My fingers? Or a mirror? Or I could cut open a body? Or I could feel the brown stuff squeeze through it as I sit on the crapper?

I asked if you could SEE your anal passage.

The only way you can see your anal passage is through an endoscope. Since I myself have not seen my anal passage through an endoscope, as most people have not, do you suggest we withhold belief in the existence of our own anal passages?

Well, you are not able to prove God's existence then, just some creating force surely?

Force????

You mean F=ma kind of force???

Are you serious???

Regardless, psuedo-intellectualism I suspect (and yes, I've probably spelt that wrong )

I do not consider myself an intellectual. Just someone using facts and logic.

Outside the boundaries of the universe?

If there is something beyond the UNIverse, it wouldn't be called a UNIverse, now, would it?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is not a shred of credible evidence for the existence of god.

Belief in god has the same status as believing in fairies, father xmas and the goodness of George W Bush.

Which is a good job because otherwise although I am a kind considerate person I would be looking forward to an eternity of being burned because of the way I think.

Isn't that loving and kind?

No, but it maybe explains why religious people are so obsessed with killing people with fire for the way they think.

800,000 women burned to death at the stake across Europe for being slightly eccentric.

Hundreds of thousands burned to death in Iraq because god's favourite nation (???) likes to steal oil from Muslims.

Crusaders going to the middle east to kill Muslims.

If god did exist someone should help him to not exist.

And for all those suckers who say it is not god it is man....

According to you god made everything and because he is oniscient he knew how it would turn out. He had the choice to make it different or not do it at all but he chose to make the world knowing how it would go.

And therefore he is to blame.

Or he would be if he had the decency to exist.

 

[PLC1]

There is not a shred of credible evidence for the existence of god.

Belief in god has the same status as believing in fairies, father xmas and the goodness of George W Bush.

Which is a good job because otherwise although I am a kind considerate person I would be looking forward to an eternity of being burned because of the way I think.

Isn't that loving and kind?

No, but it maybe explains why religious people are so obsessed with killing people with fire for the way they think.

800,000 women burned to death at the stake across Europe for being slightly eccentric.

Hundreds of thousands burned to death in Iraq because god's favourite nation (???) likes to steal oil from Muslims.

Crusaders going to the middle east to kill Muslims.

If god did exist someone should help him to not exist.

And for all those suckers who say it is not god it is man....

According to you god made everything and because he is oniscient he knew how it would turn out. He had the choice to make it different or not do it at all but he chose to make the world knowing how it would go.

And therefore he is to blame.

Or he would be if he had the decency to exist.

A couple of observations aboaut your post:

There are many possibilities as to the nature of god. God doesn't have to be the Christian god, nor the Muslim god.

Not every religion believes that non believers, or infidels, will have to burn in Hell.

There is no way to prove the existence nor the non existence of god.

 

[UShadItComing]

The bible which is declared to be the word of god is full of errors. One example is that the earth would have to be 6000 to 10,000 years old if we took the word of the bible. Therefore it is completely unreasonable to suggest that a god has even left any proof in hte least to back his existence. Most intelligent people would accept that alone as proof that god does not exist and is nothing but another of the sky fairies along with Santa, Easter bunny, Peter Pan, and other assorted make-believe characters.

We atheists shouldn't belabour the point too much because it only gives the relgious the audience they crave. Left alone and ignored religons always eventually go extinct and it's clear that Christianity for one can't stand the scrutiny of modern science in a modern world. A more durable fantasy will need to be invented which can take it's place or Christians will need to come out with a new revised editon of the bible. Indeed it appears that this could be a work in progress as we speak.

 

[PLC1]

The bible which is declared to be the word of god is full of errors. One example is that the earth would have to be 6000 to 10,000 years old if we took the word of the bible. Therefore it is completely unreasonable to suggest that a god has even left any proof in hte least to back his existence. Most intelligent people would accept that alone as proof that god does not exist and is nothing but another of the sky fairies along with Santa, Easter bunny, Peter Pan, and other assorted make-believe characters.

We atheists shouldn't belabour the point too much because it only gives the relgious the audience they crave. Left alone and ignored religons always eventually go extinct and it's clear that Christianity for one can't stand the scrutiny of modern science in a modern world. A more durable fantasy will need to be invented which can take it's place or Christians will need to come out with a new revised editon of the bible. Indeed it appears that this could be a work in progress as we speak.

The 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth idea is some people's interpretation of the Bible. Of course, literal interpretation does not stand up to modern science.

Do you believe that there are only two choices, that the Bible is literal and historically factual, or that there is no god?

God did leave evidence of his existence in his creation, not in the ancient writings of Man, but, that still doesn't prove the existence of god.

Disbelief in the literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't disprove god, either.