Prove that God doesn't exist.

[bododie]

Please cite any post where I have insinuated that I believe in any of the stuff you listed above.
Religion: institutionalized system of beliefs.
Faith: belief and trust in God.

Can you even conceive of the differences? 'cause you keep harping on religion. Is we came from pond scum the most credible answer to you?

The bottom line is that you can't prove any of your "conclusions" from man's studies and written words is any closer to explaining the origin of HUMAN life than faith does. Why can't you just admit that? Do you think you have read stuff that no one else has? Do you think that just because someone believes in God that they don't have a desire to learn? Can you come right out and say that I am definitely wrong and you are definitely right?

No I don't think 'what do I want to be true?' and then just believe it irrespective of the evidence.

Are you sure that those who say they love you and do kind acts for you, actually do love you the way you think? or do you just have "faith" because it's what you want to believe?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

There is a big difference between faith and knowldge.

One is the belief in that for which you don't have evidence.

Guess which one

 

[bododie]

The one you are believing? You are putting your absolute trust in an entity that has proven it's ignorance and inabilities, and dishonesty since the dawn of time.

Where is your evidence? the latest study?

 

[bododie]

Better idea. Let's give up on God and talk about the evolution theory that you trust.
Can we agree that evolution is simply another term for mutation? Evolution not only deals with physical properties but also mental and reasoning properties. If so, then it doesn't seem that all humans evolved equally because some specific groups of humans still live like, have unnatural relations with, and sport the alpha mentality of animals. Did these people stop evolving too soon? Maybe science should inject entire peoples with better bacteria so they catch up. Sound good? Science fix everything...

 

[The Scotsman]

drinking beer is childish. football is childish.

..........you've just trashed my whole life!!!!!

 

[dahermit]

When a witness swears 'to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me god', does he not, in fact, enter god's existence as evidence in a court of law? An evidence that is largely uncontested?

Gosh, I have missed you, little brown monkey. But alas no, if you were a resident of the U.S. you would know that there is now an alternate oath that a person may opt to take for the purpose of swearing in at a court of law that does not pertain to a "God".
It goes something like: "Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

There is actually more 'evidence' for god's existence than a ufo.Duh?

This post was in response to Dr.Who's statement that the only observable evidence of God was related to how believable a person was in their personal "testimony"(A personal declaration of the salvation of God; as in some Protestant religions... not as in testimony given in a court of law.). That is why I related it to the equivalent testimony of UFO observers.

You seem to have not gotten any more knowledgeable about American culture. You seem to be stuck on "warped paper targets."

 

[bododie]

you've just trashed my whole life!!!!!

O.K. I'll amend it. Beer, football combined with special feelings for goats is childish. If your life is still trashed, I don't want to know about it! lol.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Anyone who relies for evidence on a single book with talking snakes in it shouldn't throw stones.

 

[numinus]

Gosh, I have missed you, little brown monkey.

Of course you would miss me. Low-brows normally feel that way to their betters.

But alas no, if you were a resident of the U.S. you would know that there is now an alternate oath that a person may opt to take for the purpose of swearing in at a court of law that does not pertain to a "God".
It goes something like: "Do you swear or affirm, under penalty of perjury, that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

It doesn't change the fact that a lot of people have sworn by god in the past. And their sworn testimonies, part of american jurisprudence.

Duh?

This post was in response to Dr.Who's statement that the only observable evidence of God was related to how believable a person was in their personal "testimony"(A personal declaration of the salvation of God; as in some Protestant religions... not as in testimony given in a court of law.). That is why I related it to the equivalent testimony of UFO observers.

I am perfectly aware of what your stupid post really amounts to -- that you would reduce a metaphysical truth to an official entry in a government log book.

But then again, what can one really expect from a low-brow cowboy like you?

You seem to have not gotten any more knowledgeable about American culture. You seem to be stuck on "warped paper targets."

It really is best to leave the subject matter of standard deviations to engineers and the shooting of guns to the know-nothing cowboys.

HEE-HAW!

 

[numinus]

The argument on this thread basically says that the statement 'xyz does not exist' cannot be legitimately used.

And yet people use it all the time.

For normal parlence it means there isn't nor has there been nor is remotely likely that there will ever be credible evidence of existence of xyz.

God fits this bill perfectly and having a life-style belief system based on anything that fits this bill is just ridiculous.

Adults should have put away such childish things.

Ontology says no such thing.

There is the argument from cause, the argument from motion, the argument from teleology, etc. Nothing in those arguments is remotely similar to what you are saying here.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Those arguments are all discredited.

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

 

[Dr.Who]

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

Yes, it does push the question back. The first cause might not be God though it does have to be something outside of the natural world. And once we accept that there do exist things outside of the natural world then we can be more open to the testimony of the prophets.

For the naturalist they have to come to grips with the fact that almost all scientist claim that the universe had a beginning. Yet at the same time they claim that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed. clearly there is a contradiction operating here and it just might indicate that the scientist have at least one assumption wrong somewhere. Perhaps the one where they say there is nothing beyond the natural world - which is a faith based statement. Well probably and obviously that is the assumption they have wrong because they claim that something started the universe.

But unlike the natural universe which almost all the scientists are saying had a beginning, God is claimed to have always existed by almost all the religionists.

 

[dahermit]

.
There are lots of proof[for the existence of God]. Thomas aquainas gave five. And he was a medieval thinker.

Do you mean Saint Thomas Aquinas? A medieval Catholic Priest, philosopher, concocter of theories. In 1225 they did not know that bacteria caused disease, likely thought that it was "evil spirits", earth was thought flat, and like in third world countries, did not wipe their a$$es on paper. So we are to take the theories of the "dumb ox" as he was called by some of his peers, a priest who was likely prejudicially influenced by his commitment to the catholic church, as proof of the existence of a God?

 

[numinus]

Those arguments are all discredited.

Saying that there has to be god to be a first cause just pushes the question back.

What caused god?

It is precisely your reasoning that is a logical fallacy -- infinite regress. A chain of causality may not extend infinitely. At some point, there is a first cause that is caused by itself -- hence god.

Which brings us to the concept of NECESSARY EXISTENCE, as opposed to contingent existence.

Understand?

 

[numinus]

Do you mean Saint Thomas Aquinas? A medieval Catholic Priest, philosopher, concocter of theories. In 1225 they did not know that bacteria caused disease, likely thought that it was "evil spirits", earth was thought flat, and like in third world countries, did not wipe their a$$es on paper. So we are to take the theories of the "dumb ox" as he was called by some of his peers, a priest who was likely prejudicially influenced by his commitment to the catholic church, as proof of the existence of a God?

Correct. He is a saint of the catholic church. He is considered a church 'father' for his contributions to catholic dogma and western thought.

And no, his cinque viae did not make mention of bacteria nor flat earth, so your post is entirely irrelevant.

Oh, and there are many versions of the cosmological argument framed in the modern setting. There is even a moslem version of it -- the kalam cosmological argument.

The point I am making, if it isn't obvious by now, is that a metaphysical truth may not be reduced to an entry in a government logbook. Nor is it dependent on 'sensory' evidence.

Capice?