Prove that God doesn't exist.

[PLC1]

I contend that the only people who struggle with evolution are the idiots who taught you about religion. That wouldn't be God. It would be someone much closer to home.

Why would that be? Unless you buy the total nonsense about a literal interpretation of Genesis, evolution has nothing to do with religion at all.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Can someone decode bododies post for me please?

I think it would be fair to respond that god hasn't taught me anything because he doesn't exist but you can't be too sure with arcane statements like that post.

 

[bododie]

Dawkins, you play dumb so well. I hope your kids evolve further. Lol.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

If you wrote plain English I would not have asked for a decode.

I suppose that you have learned the art of obfuscation from defending nonesensical religious doctrine and now it is second nature.

I am quite glad I struggle to understand your gobbledegook

 

[bododie]

Of course you would, that's the stupid game you always play.

Here's plain English. Blame the idiots who taught you to fear God. It was the ignorance of an infallible human being. It was your ignorance that never got past it. You don't get to assume that everyone who has faith in God is as uninformed and as narrow minded as you are. You're just not that impressive a person. You don't get to tell me what I believe just because you think I do. That's just stupidity by any name.

 

[top gun]

numinus;79970]Apparently not. Why else do you write 5 paragraphs to say 3 simple words? YOU DON'T KNOW. That says it all, imo.

Well then your opinion would be wrong. No matter how much smoke & mirrors you throw up it still all boils down to nobody can PROVE how everything began... not you, me, nobody.

So the only real difference is do we or do we not from that platform jump to "it must be magical". You say absolutely.

I say I am going to watch the scientific evidence continue to keep expanding and providing testable proof of things just as it has done forever.

See I'm not excluding you nor your contention. I'm just not letting you say something is fact that obviously is not. The Fairy parables I use are just to point out I could transpose any number of things into your story and they are just as "not provable" as your original contention.

What other statement can you leave me with except, you don't know, hmmm? Whatever other assertion you are inclined to make has no merit, simply because, by your own admission, ---- all together now ----YOU DON'T KNOW.

Well we have to look at the credibility in the arguments presented. I say that I cannot prove how everything began by testable means but can show a progression of provable science leading in a direction to someday know... and it's true I don't believe the answer is magic.

You say your faith tells you that it's magic. And you bolster your assertion with your best (and seriously your most telling line) which was... It's quite possible the earth could be flat.

I'm satisfied.

 

[PLC1]

Ninety nine pages, and no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god.

Maybe on the hundredth page, that elusive proof will be posted.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ninety nine pages, and no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god.

Maybe on the hundredth page, that elusive proof will be posted.

And maybe not. Don't hold your breath unless you look good in blue.

 

[Dr.Who]

Here is an engineering joke that also involves god.
Three men were sentenced to death by guillotine: a priest, a lawyer, and an engineer.

The priest wanted to lay upward to face his maker during his death. He fervently prayed.
The blade came down and stopped one foot short of his neck. He was set free because of a law about executing twice.

The lawyer decided to do the same, and he fervently prayed. Despite his sins, the blade stopped one foot short of his neck too. He was also set free.

The engineer decided to do the same, but he saw a loose nail that was stopping the blade. Before the blade was dropped he yelled, "Stop!! I see the problem. I think I can fix it.

Love that joke! Tried to green you but could not.

 

[Dr.Who]

No it wouldn't.

He could be doing it as part of his programming

If, as you defined it, he were the engineer of his own downfall then yes he would be making his own decisions and be exercising free will.

If God put that programming in place then he would not be the engineer of his own downfall, God would be.

So tell us, do you believe that you have been programmed to make the decisions you make? If yes, then there must be a programmer. If no then there is free will.

Do you think you make your own decisions? If yes then you have free will and cannot blame God for what you decide to do. If no, then there is a programmer.

If you have been arguing all along that God is responsible for all the bad in the world because He programmed people then you are arguing for the existence of God. There is no other way for people to not have free will than for God (or some other programmer) to exist.

But if you are not arguing for the existence of some programmer then you must accept that men have free will. And if men have free will then you cannot argue that God is responsible for all the bad.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

I think I have a certain amount of free will but I don't believe in god.

To be honest you make a good argument why free will in the context of god is not possible and that it does not therefore get god off the hook.

The even bigger problem for god of course is that nobody forced him to make the world and/or lucipher and if he had simply not made us there would have been no sin and no suffering and nobody would have missed out because they would never have existed.

 

[top gun]

Ninety nine pages, and no one has yet proven that there is or is not a god.

Maybe on the hundredth page, that elusive proof will be posted.

Impossible to prove I think!

signed,
Yoda

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Actually it is only possible to prove that there is a god.

It takes an infinite number of white swans to prove that all swans are white and only one black one to prove they are not.

But, the fact that millions of people, over thouisnads of years, clinginging to the belief that god exists have not been able to find one single scrap of credible evidence for his existence coupled with the illogicality of god makes it perfectly reasonable, in common parlance to say god does not exist.

If you want to argue against that the best you can do is to rule out saying of anything that it doesn't exist.

But we all know that outide of discussions like this christians will happily say santa claus doesn't exist for example

That is because they are obliged to adopt double standards to defend their indefensible beliefs.

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;80149]
So tell us, do you believe that you have been programmed to make the decisions you make? If yes, then there must be a programmer. If no then there is free will.

If you define "programed" as in the human quest to perpetuate the species and achieve basic human survival skills , yes.

But that doesn't mean any "thing" programmed it. Just as it can be proven that many sea creatures were once land animals species over millions of years adapt & evolve on their own... if they don't go extinct for some reason.

Do you think you make your own decisions? If yes then you have free will and cannot blame God for what you decide to do. If no, then there is a programmer.

Your question is much like saying... The number 20 is either 19 +1 or 10 + 10... when those are not the only possibilities at all. People start with basic perpetuation of the species adaptation just like any other creature. As our brain has evolved to a higher level than any other know creature with a much higher power to reason, calculate and express emotional feelings we learn and add to those basic survival skills on our own over centuries and centuries of time.

So "free will" is relative. Right & wrong is a judgment learned over time by seeing cause & effect not something die cast into us. For instance sometimes killing is acceptable sometimes it is not.

If you have been arguing all along that God is responsible for all the bad in the world because He programmed people then you are arguing for the existence of God. There is no other way for people to not have free will than for God (or some other programmer) to exist.

Again (and I don't mean to speak for you Dawkins), but I think what's being said is... you can't have it just one way. He's simply turning the good/bad argument around as to say neither make much sense.

But if you are not arguing for the existence of some programmer then you must accept that men have free will. And if men have free will then you cannot argue that God is responsible for all the bad.

And again I see the box you're trying to create here and if those were the only two option you may well be correct... but I think all the above observations apply here as well.

The fact that all things alive or not are made up of basic and identified elements and when those are combined in such a way as to create any type of life they try to survive. But that does not prove there must be one God or a hundred Gods or no God. It proves only that once something comes to life it tries to perpetuate to survive... and that's all.

 

[numinus]

We are working on that, but it's a slow process, the courts in California admitted that the original statue was un-Constitutional according to California's Constitution. When the courts overruled the law and let gay people have equal rights tens of thousands of them married, but now with the Prop 8 the ban has been reinstated by popular vote--and back to the courts it goes. Eventually the US Supreme Court will have to make the final judgment.

You cannot prove its unconstitutionality and so you pin your hopes on a numbers game -- by proposing an absurd piece of positive law that could only be valid based on a majority sentiment -- NO FACTS, NO LOGIC.

I am quite aware of what your rhetoric really amounts to.

No, but it will be one more step towards ending the legitimacy of the homophobia that is currently "winked at" in most of the country. Civil rights laws went along way towards ending the official climate of suppression towards black people. It didn't end the lynchings but it did bring to bear the official weight of the law on people who committed the crime.

But unlike gay marriage, some of the causes of the civil rights movement actually had arguments based on REASON.

I know you think you did really well with your logical proof, but I gotta tell ya' I thought it was a semantic jumble. A verbal logical proof doesn't prove an anthropomorphic god. It proves the possiblity of a first cause, but what if there were no first cause? Just because we can't imagine or conceive such a thing doesn't prove that it's not so. It's like plotting a curve from one point, no matter how nice that point is it doesn't allow you to plot the curve.

If there is no first cause, it would be FATAL to EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW.

Imagine a controlled laboratory experiment. How much of the result happened with no cause at all, hmmm?

Or, even if you repeat the experiment as much as you wish, what makes you think that the next time, something that has no cause would be introduced in the result, hmmm?

Its like watching a replay of a basketball game and you wishing the result would be different.

Duh?

It always makes me happy to see you "sigh", it means that I'm getting through to you.

Like this one right here. Do you actually believe what you are saying would be deemed any more correct without providiing some logic?

Just because my definition doesn't match yours doesn't make mine wrong.

Of course it is wrong. Did you think you can define a word any which way you wish to support your nonsense?

I'm ignoring you with dignity.

I didn't think it was possible to be so ignorant and dignified at the same time. Good luck with that.