Do you actually believe that faith is from a book? You're not making the intelligent argument you think you are. You are assuming that your intellect can disprove the existence of anything that you cannot touch. You can't. Sorry. If you ever do, let me know. Trying to explain everything logically leaves us with existentialism. If you get hit by a car and die, it's totally your fault for being there in the first place, there is no randomness to life at all. If there is no randomness, how did we evolve to what we are today? Did the bacteria have a plan? Prove it.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Prove that God doesn't exist.
- Thread starter Kelly
- Start date
Werbung:
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
You are saying you have just made up an idea of god based on the fact that you can't answer some difficult questions.
This is quite common with godbotherers.
And it is ridiculous
This is quite common with godbotherers.
And it is ridiculous
Think what you like. You haven't been able to prove anything either, other than being a judgmental person who calls themselves liberal. You only address points in posts that suit your purpose, the folly of all liberals, and mankind in general.
Do you actually believe that bacteria evolved into an ability to create human life and reason. Where is your proof? You have none. Your inability to accept that human intellect isn't the beginning and end of all knowledge is as ridiculous as anything you pass judgment on.
Do you believe that alien life as imagined by man is more probable than God? Did man have to make up something so ugly? Couldn't he have made up an alien lifeform that looked like Chris Cornel? What is that alien theory based on? Probability as prescribed by MAN? Ridiculous.
Do you actually believe that bacteria evolved into an ability to create human life and reason. Where is your proof? You have none. Your inability to accept that human intellect isn't the beginning and end of all knowledge is as ridiculous as anything you pass judgment on.
Do you believe that alien life as imagined by man is more probable than God? Did man have to make up something so ugly? Couldn't he have made up an alien lifeform that looked like Chris Cornel? What is that alien theory based on? Probability as prescribed by MAN? Ridiculous.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
I haven't called myself anything.
You can keep demanding proof of all the scenarios you keep coming up with all you like.
I am not sufficiently stupid to 'reason' in the following way.
''There are some really hard questions to answer so I know, I will just make up an answer and that answer will be as bizarre as it gets and pose as many if not more questions than it answers.''
I would rather continue the search for truth.
You can keep demanding proof of all the scenarios you keep coming up with all you like.
I am not sufficiently stupid to 'reason' in the following way.
''There are some really hard questions to answer so I know, I will just make up an answer and that answer will be as bizarre as it gets and pose as many if not more questions than it answers.''
I would rather continue the search for truth.
That's fine. But what makes you think you, or me, or some goat farmer living today is going to find the "truth" that no one in the history of man, that we can ask, has been able to prove? Again I ask: do you think that bacteria could have evolved into what human beings are?
]
eh?
I haven't called myself anything.
Everyone's got it wrong except Libs
eh?
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Are you ok?
LOL. You don't have to accept my words dahlin', but to refute your own is something else. If Libs are right (according to your words), and you think you are right, then by "reasoning" you are a lib.
Please answer the bacteria question. If you believe in science then you must believe in that theory, 'cause it's the new and upcoming scientific assumption, made by man.
Please answer the bacteria question. If you believe in science then you must believe in that theory, 'cause it's the new and upcoming scientific assumption, made by man.
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
see my last post on the other 'dialogue'
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
If you like
Dawkinsrocks
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you mean.
But here is my last word on this thread.
The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.
It is a desperate argument that I will no longer dignify with a response.
I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist.
But here is my last word on this thread.
The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.
It is a desperate argument that I will no longer dignify with a response.
I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist.
The existence of something does not imply a creator.
The existence of something implies a CAUSE, which ultimately leads to an UNCAUSED CAUSE.
That is fallacious reasoning of the type that is commonly used by Christians.
The alternative to the proposition above is that the chain of causation is infinite, which is a fallacy.
It is also spectaculalrly hypocritical as with the idea of god the question is just then shifted to what created god.
Which is why god is the uncaused cause.
The usual get out of jail card is that god has always been there.
That is correct, because the alternative is even more ludicrous.
It is a lot more reasonable to say that energy has always existed as we at least have evidence of its existence now
But we already know that energy has NOT always existed. Whatever form of energy you might be imagining, it is still a function of the fundamental quantities of physics - mass, space and time - which themselves, are finite.
But if a creator was implied there is no evidenmce whatsoever to indicate that it is god.
There are lots of proof. Thomas aquainas gave five. And he was a medieval thinker.
And if the cause of everything in everything is not god, then whatever else you wish to call it/him/her makes no difference to the argument.
And as for god, here's one for you.
If god is omniscient he kn ows everything that will happen in the future. Therefore he can't be omnipotent because he can't change it.
That is ridiculous. God's foreknowledge doesn't make him incapable of affecting causation. As a matter of fact, neither does yours.
Evolution is not a kind of design because design pre-supposes an intent i.e a change brought about for a specific purpose.
Evolution is the result of genetic accidents that happen to benefit the recipient from a survival perpsective.
Evolution occurs for the survival of the species. That is its purpose. If the specie dies out, then no evolution can occur for that specie, no?
Werbung:
Not sure what you mean.
But here is my last word on this thread.
The impossibility of proving non-existence is taken by many christians as proof of existence in the case of god.
Not at all. Ontology assumes that god does not exist and proceeds to demonstrate that such an assumption leads to a logical fallacy.
It is a desperate argument that I will no longer dignify with a response.
I am happy in the knowledge that there is not a shred of credible evidence for his existence and to, use normal parlence, to say he does not exist.
And what sort of evidence do you need?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 44
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 5K
