Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Mare Tranquillity]

And I suppose you've interviewed all 5 billion people on the planet to know that, indeed, 5 billion people presently exist.

Duh?

Is "Duh" like a family motto or something? You use it all the time.

Actually, I interviewed over 6 billion people, you are the one I didn't interview because you are such a curmudgeon, you can't seem to disagree with people in a pleasant way, you have to be nasty. It's not an appealing attribute, Nums.

Words on a page are not proof of God. Sorry, but all the words in the world are not proof of God. You may be able to prove all kinds of other things, but not God. There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, but until you conjure God up you have no proof of Its existence.

 

[numinus]

There are currently 6.3 billion people on Earth, not 5.

I stand corrected then.

And, not one of those 6.3 billion is god.

You do realize that that would make it more difficult for mare, don't you?

What does interviewing everyone on the planet have to do with interviewing god?

Mare said:

Till you conjure up God for an interview you won't have proof.

If that is the standard for god's existence, it would be as much the standard for the existence of 6.3 billion people, now, wouldn't it?

And, further, what does god really have to do with Internet Explorer?

You need to ask topgun for that. I mentioned internet explorer to make an epistemological analogy regarding his sort of agnosticism.

I can use the internet to look up the answer to most questions, not the existence of god, but most questions that have answers can be found by using the internet. Internet Explorer is demonstrable. The existence of god is not, but is a matter of faith.

The existence of a first cause is demonstrable since its effect is demonstrable. Same thing with gravity, fyi.

You can believe that there is a god, or you can believe that this pretty little blue green planet on which we all depend is the result of a series of improbable cosmic accidents. There is no way to prove either rather unbelievable option, but one or the other must be true. I can't think of any other alternative, can you?

Even cosmic accidents are contingent phenomena, hence necessitating a cause.

 

[numinus]

Is "Duh" like a family motto or something? You use it all the time.

I can't help it. It sort of comes out everytime I see statements contradicting what is otherwise self-evident.

Actually, I interviewed over 6 billion people, you are the one I didn't interview because you are such a curmudgeon, you can't seem to disagree with people in a pleasant way, you have to be nasty. It's not an appealing attribute, Nums.

Let me see -- assuming you spend 1 second to interview each of the 6 billion people --

You spent 6 billion seconds, or 100 million minutes or 1,666,667 hours or 69,444.44 days or 190.26 years on such an endeavor -- non stop.

That would make you the oldest living fairy, I mean, person I have the privilege of knowing.

Words on a page are not proof of God.

And I suppose an interview is?

Sorry, but all the words in the world are not proof of God.

How about a logical argument, hmmm?

You may be able to prove all kinds of other things, but not God.

Correction. You can't prove ANYTHING without some sort of foundational premise that is self-evidently true.

With such a premise -- well, you know the argument.

There is no way to prove that God doesn't exist, but until you conjure God up you have no proof of Its existence.

coming from somebody who purports to be more than 190 years old, that is very hard to swallow.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is a bit rich you demanding true premisses when yours is the statement that god exists.

If I said to you Jesus was a homosexual I assume you would be outraged (as most Christians are homophobic) but if I continued with my assertion you might, in one way or another ask me to prove it.

If I responded by saying 'prove he wasn't gay' you might understand what it is like arguing with the kind of nonesense displayed by the subject of this thread.

Oh and BTW there is an infintely greater probabiliity that Jesus was gay than that god exists

 

[numinus]

It is a bit rich you demanding true premisses when yours is the statement that god exists.

That is the conclusion -- not the premise.

Do you normally confuse your head with your anus?

If I said to you Jesus was a homosexual I assume you would be outraged (as most Christians are homophobic) but if I continued with my assertion you might, in one way or another ask me to prove it.

Not at all. I don't usually get outraged at the delusions of morons.

And I wouldn't ask you for proof for exactly the same reason.

If I responded by saying 'prove he wasn't gay' you might understand what it is like arguing with the kind of nonesense displayed by the subject of this thread.

So? I'm not the thread starter. Nor have I attempted to respond to it, as stated.

What's your point?

Oh and BTW there is an infintely greater probabiliity that Jesus was gay than that god exists

Oh, btw, your bigotry is a statistical certainty.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

But God as defined by Christians is logically impossible.

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

Also, omnibenevolence is incompatible with the notion that god made everything.

So the existence of god cannot possibly be the conclusion.

Now, put you little book of petty insults away and try to respond sensibly.

Or does being a christian preclude you from that and dictate that you must be extremely rude to those whose are arguments you fear?

 

[numinus]

But God as defined by Christians is logically impossible.

nope

Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive.

nah.

Also, omnibenevolence is incompatible with the notion that god made everything.

lmao

that's new ... and ultimately incorrect.

So the existence of god cannot possibly be the conclusion.

Of course not.

Now, put you little book of petty insults away and try to respond sensibly.

Did you actually think you made a valid argument? I don't think so.

Or does being a christian preclude you from that and dictate that you must be extremely rude to those whose are arguments you fear?

I am only rude to ignorant bigots. Other than that, I have a very pleasant disposition.

As for your nonsense (which you are trying to pass for a philosophical argument), it got exactly the amount of logical reply it deserves.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I can't help it. It sort of comes out everytime I see statements contradicting what is otherwise self-evident.
Let me see -- assuming you spend 1 second to interview each of the 6 billion people -- You spent 6 billion seconds, or 100 million minutes or 1,666,667 hours or 69,444.44 days or 190.26 years on such an endeavor -- non stop.

I did group interviews and talked fast--listened fast as well.

That would make you the oldest living fairy, I mean, person I have the privilege of knowing.

Fairy? As in sky-fairy, or a dig at gay people? If the latter, I gotta tell you, Nums, I'm not gay--sorry.

And I suppose an interview is?

I never said it was.

coming from somebody who purports to be more than 190 years old, that is very hard to swallow.

Show a little respect for my age, you whippersnapper.

 

[PLC1]

nope



nah.



lmao

that's new ... and ultimately incorrect.



Of course not.



Did you actually think you made a valid argument? I don't think so.



I am only rude to ignorant bigots. Other than that, I have a very pleasant disposition.

As for your nonsense (which you are trying to pass for a philosophical argument), it got exactly the amount of logical reply it deserves.

I see you have run out of arguments. That's too bad, but not surprising, as you are trying to prove what can not be proven. Dawkinsrocks is also trying to prove the unprovable, but has not yet given up. I guess that means he has won the "prove what can't be proven" debate.

To sum up, here are the possibilities:

The Earth, with its complex and highly orderly web of life, just happened with no cause, no intelligent guidance at all (highly implausible, of course), or

There is an intelligence that has created it all, whom we refer to as god, but none of us has ever seen that god or any evidence that he/she/it/they exist, other than that creation (also highly implausible).

One of he implausible ideas has to be true, but proving which one it is is not possible.

Personally, I subscribe to the hypothesis that the creation proves that there is a creator, but, then, I can't prove that either.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The answer that god made everything is a fabrication and unsupported by evidence.

The answer is.. we do not currently know how it all started if indeed it did.

That is my position.

 

[PLC1]

The answer that god made everything is a fabrication and unsupported by evidence.

The answer is.. we do not currently know how it all started if indeed it did.

That is my position.

The answer that everything simply happened with no reason or guidance is also a fabrication and unsupported by evidence.

One unsupported fabrication or the other must be the truth.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Within each amswer are many possibilities and as neither is proven to b the case and as I have said, my position is to accept that we do not know.

I do not need to invent god as an 'answer'

And for the record jumping from 'their must be a creator' to 'so therefore the god of the bible' is the kind of logic that would only appeal to a simpleton

 

[Lagboltz]

Within each amswer are many possibilities and as neither is proven to b the case and as I have said, my position is to accept that we do not know.

I do not need to invent god as an 'answer'

And for the record jumping from 'their must be a creator' to 'so therefore the god of the bible' is the kind of logic that would only appeal to a simpleton

Good point.

Let's define god as "whatever process brought about the universe". Then atheists and religious people will agree that "god" created the universe. Forget the bible. The deeper question is how can you relate that "god" to something that you would fear, praise, worship, pray to, etc.

Would the religious people here please explain why the same "god" that brought about the universe also personally micromanages all our lives? I "worship" my "god" by studying science, not by going to church or praying.

 

[top gun]

numinus;78732]I might be inclined to believe you, had I been making a comparison between god and internet explorer. Which is why you're not particularly smart.

I was demonstrating how ridiculous your agnosticism truly is. All people believe all sorts of things as a matter of course -- NOT through some logical proof.

These people you speak of believe in those "all sorts of things" because they know that they can be researched and proven scientifically... by people in the here & now.

The rest of your post was your typical... So just go ahead and believe in ghosts because others (like me) do.

Hence... no need to respond because no one can prove ghosts don't exist. Just as no one can prove fairies or leprechauns don't exist... can't prove a negative.

What we can say is none of them or God can be proven. That's all I'm saying. Believe whatever makes you feel good.

 

[PLC1]

Within each amswer are many possibilities and as neither is proven to b the case and as I have said, my position is to accept that we do not know.

I do not need to invent god as an 'answer'

And for the record jumping from 'their must be a creator' to 'so therefore the god of the bible' is the kind of logic that would only appeal to a simpleton

I don't believe I said anything about the Bible, did I?