Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it. And when answering this question, don't just think about the Christian God, but all the other religions who believe in one creator. Because everybody has a different interpretation of what God is.

prove that a god does exist. and if you can't (which you obviously can't), then rationally justify believing in something so extraordinary.

Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it. And when answering this question, don't just think about the Christian God, but all the other religions who believe in one creator. Because everybody has a different interpretation of what God is.

we've had this discussion a million times here. i know you think you are issuing a revolutionary challenge to atheists, but that is not so. you dont prove a negative, you prove a positive. you prove that god exists, you cannot disprove something for which there is already absolutely no evidence.
prove leprachauns don't exist. or unicorns. go ahead.

Prove that lenny the leprechaun doesn't exist.

well yeah... what everyone else said.

Arete,

Please familiarise yourself with what "atheism" means.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

It is essentially not about claiming that gods do not exist but more about the theist inability to show they do exist.

Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it.

The onus of the claim belongs to the one making the claim. Basically your correct, an atheist claiming that there's no god, basically claims that: He knows what god is, and it don't exist. He can prove that a god does not exist. But you know he can't. Right ;)

So basically you came here thinking you have such a challenge. But you don't the onus of proof is also on your shoulders, because you "believe" that god exists. See you claim to know what god is, and that it exists. Since you presume to know what god is, and you know that it exists, go ahead and prove it then.

You will claim that you can't, so your are in the same boat.

What happened though, is you "believe" atheist claim that there's no god, some might, but many don't make that judgement call to put themselves in that onus position. Basically you need to learn the concepts of "strong atheism & weak atheism". I'm from the school of weak atheism, that is I can't make claims that can't be proven with emperical evidence. There's no way to prove a negative. So the claim is totally on your shoulders. Because you "believe" god exists.

A strong atheist, claim that there's no god, and basically he/she is in the position to refute the idea, and puts himself in the onus position to prove to you that a god does not exist. This can be done by using logic. Though I've yet to see an strong atheist convince a theist, that there's no god.

The existence of God is not enough to explain the existence of the Universe (http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html#God)

Godless

There is no evidence that a god does exist.
However, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, thus a god would be an unknown unknown, instead of an unknown known or a known unknown or a Known Thing. In other words, there is not really proof either way, and it is entirely and utterly unknowable, thus...agnosticism.

Although an absence of evidence lasting many thousands of years seems to me to be very strong evidence that gods do not exist.

There is no evidence that a god does exist.
However, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, thus a god would be an unknown unknown, instead of an unknown known or a known unknown or a Known Thing. In other words, there is not really proof either way, and it is entirely and utterly unknowable, thus...agnosticism.You do know that agnosticism is not actually a separate viewpoint to atheism or theism?

A/theism is concerned with "belief" (or lack thereof) in the theological God(s).
Agnosticism is concerned with epistemology - the nature and limits of human knowledge around, in this case, God.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. :D

Arete:

Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

sinbad

Who has the Burden of Proof?

Using that phrase makes it sound like a person has to definitely prove, beyond a doubt, that something is true; that, however, is only rarely the case. A more accurate label would be a “burden of support” — the key is that a person must support what they are saying. This can involve empirical evidence, logical arguments, and even positive proof.

Which of those must be presented will depend very much upon the nature of the claim in question. Some claims are easier and simpler to support than others — but regardless, a claim without any support is not one which merits rational belief. Thus, anyone making a claim which they consider rational and which they expect others to accept must provide some support.

An even more basic principle to remember here is that some burden of proof always lies with the person who is making a claim, not the person who is hearing the claim and who may not initially believe it. In practice, then, this means that the initial burden of proof lies with the theist, not with the atheist. Both the atheist and the theist probably agree on a great many things, but it is the theist who asserts the further belief in the existence of a god.

This extra claim is what must be supported, and the requirement of rational, logical support for a claim is very important. The methodology of skepticism, critical thinking, and logical arguments is what allows us to separate sense from nonsense; when a person abandons that methodology, they abandon any pretense of trying to make sense or engage in a sensible discussion.

a cline

does this clarify things for you.

arete, you people make me laugh, with your prove god question.
the onus is on you to provide prove, this will help you understand.
Do you think a woman should have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, without evidence? Of course not.
She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present.
Therefore, presuming the existence of God and acting accordingly is exactly the same as presuming the existence of cancer cells and having surgery accordingly.
One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence.
So you see it's your problem, your the one with the sky daddy fixation.

arete, you people make me laugh, with your prove god question.
the onus is on you to provide prove, this will help you understand.
Do you think a woman should have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, without evidence? Of course not.
She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present.
Therefore, presuming the existence of God and acting accordingly is exactly the same as presuming the existence of cancer cells and having surgery accordingly.
One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence.
So you see it's your problem, your the one with the sky daddy fixation.

why is everyone so rude to the threadstarter, just because he posts an argument that is used so often on this forum (in reverse).
sure, he is incorrect on the etiquette of discourse, but is that any reason to be as rude as some of you have been?

Although an absence of evidence lasting many thousands of years seems to me to be very strong evidence that gods do not exist.

Perhaps, but this kind of conclusion has led to mistakes.... For decades there has been an utter lack of evidence for the existence of the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. It was presumed extirpated. Recent evidence may now prove otherwise.

a direct answer to your exact question would go something like this.

i cant prove god dosent exist, just like i cant prove he does exist.

a unicorn? i have no trouble believing a horse with a horn existed at some point in history. its not that amazing just a horse/pony type creature with a horn. like a rhino?

peace.

peace.

Empty:

It might be logically possible that a unicorn-like species might have existed, but without evidence that they did exist, I don't think you'd want to say that you positively believe they existed. Right?

Empty:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.

why is everyone so rude to the threadstarter, just because he posts an argument that is used so often on this forum (in reverse).

Audible was not rude in his statement. And the reason you find rudeness in answering this question, is that it has been rehashed several thousand times allready all over the internet. Basically any atheistic forum you find will have the same consequence with this typical ignorant question. ;)

Godless

Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it. And when answering this question, don't just think about the Christian God, but all the other religions who believe in one creator. Because everybody has a different interpretation of what God is.

Prove to me there isn't a diamond the shape of Britney Spears burried under my garden... You see, the scope of that statement is too large for any man-made desire (such as God) to be true, and you can still conclude that it is as close to 100% likely to be false.

So far, countless times throughout history science has proved religious superstitions false. Some major things like the beginning of the world, the universe, life and other much smaller things. And as for the things that have not yet been proven false, I think common sense is a good judge.

We can safely conclude from our findings that all religions are false. The only thing still left to be proven is that the universe wasn't created by intelligence

why is everyone so rude to the threadstarter, just because he posts an argument that is used so often on this forum (in reverse).
sure, he is incorrect on the etiquette of discourse, but is that any reason to be as rude as some of you have been?

It was only Audible and only the first sentence. That doesn't qualify as 'everybody' :)

Audible was not rude in his statement...

I disagree. He opened with:

arete, you people make me laugh, with your prove god question.

which is fairly rude. The rest of what he presented was fine and informitive. I am sure arete is a big girl/boy and can withstand one small emotional remark.

Why Arete never respond ? Are we feeding the noob ? :D

a noob lol

I dont see how, what I said is fairly rude, however I've never been one to suffer fools gladly.
stick and stones and all that, if people dont want the beliefs laughed at, then they should'nt have such stupid beliefs.

Do you think a woman should have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, without evidence? Of course not.
She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present.
Therefore, presuming the existence of God and acting accordingly is exactly the same as presuming the existence of cancer cells and having surgery accordingly.
One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence.
Actually, if you assumed consistently that there were no cancer cells, you would never go to get checked for breast cancer, which is the path of the unwise.
Assuming that cancer exists and acting accordingly is only smart, you don't have to assume that you personally have cancer.
Interesting analogy (at first glance) though, I'll give you that.

Do you think a woman should have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, without evidence? Of course not.
She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present.
Therefore, presuming the existence of God and acting accordingly is exactly the same as presuming the existence of cancer cells and having surgery accordingly.
One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence.
Actually, if you assumed consistently that there were no cancer cells, you would never go to get checked for breast cancer, which is the path of the unwise.of course, but where does audible even hint at, assuming consistently, he goes on to say quote "One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence." Assuming that cancer exists and acting accordingly is only smart, you don't have to assume that you personally have cancer. again of course, but the womans not going to have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, is she, She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present. as audible said.
Interesting analogy (at first glance) though, I'll give you that.
great analogy at any glance.

for the life of me I cant understand why you made a comment on the analogy, in the first place.
as he had already covered your arguement.

Empty:

It might be logically possible that a unicorn-like species might have existed, but without evidence that they did exist, I don't think you'd want to say that you positively believe they existed. Right?


no i dont believe they do exist, until there is evidence showing me a skeleton of one,

but it is possible and logical to believe they might have existed,


other than saying "no ofcourse they didnt exist"


peace.

Empty:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a being of great spiritual power. We know this because she is capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that she is pink; we logically know that she is invisible because we can't see her.



yes i grasp the metaphore,

but the reason why i think its logical to beleive a god like energy could exist in the universe, is because of the mystery of the universes creation.

time and time again i have thought about the universal creation, and i cant actually come up with a better explanation than an infinite energy source, (ie god), not the bible version of god, i speak of god as an infinite energy source non conscious or conscious i dont know,


but yeah i dont think of god as a man with a white staff and beard, i think of god as a plasma like energy source that is infinite, or i think of god as the tao, the empty space that is everywhere in the universe,


i just think about what is possible, i dont actually believe any of this, its just what could be possible,


the universe is a mystery to everyone on earth no matter what we think we know, i believe in physical science as much as the next guy, but i wont start saying a god like bieng is not real, simply because im just a human so what the hell do i know about the creation of existance itself?,


again im not saying god is real im not saying god isnt real. but i am saying an infinite energy source in the universe that created it is possible,


peace.

of course, but where does audible even hint at, assuming consistently, he goes on to say quote "One should always assume non-existence, until presented with evidence supporting the idea of existence." again of course, but the womans not going to have a double mastectomy because she presumes the existence of cancer cells, is she, She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present. as audible said.
great analogy at any glance.

for the life of me I cant understand why you made a comment on the analogy, in the first place.
as he had already covered your arguement.
You obviously can't see the problem.
If she was assuming the non-existence of cancerous cells, there would be no reason to get checked. Instead she makes no asssumption and gets checked for the possibility of cancer - that is the intelligent way to act in this scenario.
I'm not saying anyone should go get a mastectomy - or sell their house and move to mount sinai or whatever. I am simply pointing out that making an assumption of non-existence in this scenario, would allow you to avoid all checkups - if you know you don't have cancer, you have no reason to get checked. The thing is - you don't know, that is why you get checked.

You obviously can't see the problem.
If she was assuming the non-existence of cancerous cells, there would be no reason to get checked. Instead she makes no asssumption and gets checked for the possibility of cancer - that is the intelligent way to act in this scenario.your right I cant see this problem, you seem to have with this, audible quite clearly states She ASSUMES the non-existence of cancer cells, until presented with evidence that cancer cells are present.IE she gets a pain and goes to see the doctor etc.

f**k me man, we all assume we have nothing wrong with us until we get a pain/illness and see a doctor.

your right I cant see this problem, you seem to have with this, audible quite clearly states IE she gets a pain and goes to see the doctor etc.

f**k me man, we all assume we have nothing wrong with us until we get a pain/illness and see a doctor.
Women are not advised to get checked when they have "a pain", but regularly, with or without a pain - i.e. with no clue that the cancer exists in their body, and only having the idea that the cancer may exist.


P.S. It is even possible that the cancer exists after the doctor checks them out, but to react to that "cancer" would in fact be paranoid behavior - the big difference between this and spiritual belief is that there is no acceptable test for God's existence. But that is not really my point.

what Does Is Matter Whether God Exists, Or Not?

http://www.jcnot4me.com/images/HeadExplode.gif

[QUOTE=cole grey]You obviously can't see the problem.
If she was assuming the non-existence of cancerous cells, there would be no reason to get checked. Instead she makes no asssumption and gets checked for the possibility of cancer

Because of the evidence she has that women are subject to breast cancer.

BTW Mythbuster -- That's sick. What is that?

f**k me man, we all assume we have nothing wrong with us until we get a pain/illness and see a doctor.

After 50 you should have periodic colonoscopies even if you feel great. In the early, treatable stages, colon cancer might present no symptoms at all.

Shoot, I go in for a physical once a year even when I feel fine.

God doesn't exist because if he did that would limit him to the description humans gave to him. Thus limiting god means he can't possibly exist!

Christians define god, god being defined ceases to be a god and adopts human qualities, thus it's fantasy.

You do know that agnosticism is not actually a separate viewpoint to atheism or theism?

A/theism is concerned with "belief" (or lack thereof) in the theological God(s).
Agnosticism is concerned with epistemology - the nature and limits of human knowledge around, in this case, God.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist. :D
Like I said, god is an unknown unknown, something that is entirely unknowable by the limits of human knowledge, thus it is impossible to really know either way.
Though there is a simple mathematical equasion to determine if god exists or not. God supposedly has no beginning and no end. Mathematically, this is expressed as 0 x inifinity. Plug that into a calculator, and you come up with: 0.

Like I said, god is an unknown unknown, something that is entirely unknowable by the limits of human knowledge, thus it is impossible to really know either way.
Though there is a simple mathematical equasion to determine if god exists or not. God supposedly has no beginning and no end. Mathematically, this is expressed as 0 x inifinity. Plug that into a calculator, and you come up with: 0.

Mathematically He doesn't fall into any equation, because eternity is outside of time which is finite, and is not subject to be represented by any number or variable.
Plug that into your calculator...

Like I said, god is an unknown unknown, something that is entirely unknowable by the limits of human knowledge, thus it is impossible to really know either way.
0.


Though there is a simple mathematical equasion to determine if god exists or not. God supposedly has no beginning and no end. Mathematically, this is expressed as 0 x inifinity. Plug that into a calculator, and you come up with:

Haha, this is ridiculous, especially given the content of your first paragraph. Mathematics is within the limits of human knowledge/mental capacity, goober.

Atheist are always saying there is no God, well why don't you prove it
And when answering this question, don't just think about the Christian God, but all the other religions who believe in one creator. Because everybody has a different interpretation of what God is.
sure,
as soon as you prove to me theres no Invisible gremlin in my clothes washer eating my socks.because some are always missing... :D

anyways ..heres whole lotta proofs for ya
www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html ;)

www.doesgodexistanswer.net

sure,
as soon as you prove to me theres no Invisible gremlin in my clothes washer eating my socks.because some are always missing... :D

anyways ..heres whole lotta proofs for ya
www.tektonics.org/guest/300proof.html ;)

www.doesgodexistanswer.net

I want to add another one:

My Perfect Proof for the Non-Existence of God

P1 If the theory of gravity were in fact true we would all have condensed into an infinitely small singularity
P2 We have not condensed into an infinitely small singularity
C God does not exist

Theist First Perfect Proof for the Existence of God

P1 If the universe existed eternally man would have evolved to be perfect
P2 Man has not evolved to be perfect
C Therefore mankind is 6000 years old, the creation myth in Genesis is true and the God of the bible exists

Notice how the first premises in both cases badly distort the science they revolve around? Notice how the second premises then point out how a certain aspect of the distorted version of said scientific does not obtain? Notice how both arguments finish with non-sequiturs? Clearly if my argument is invalid then so is yours since they both have the same features and the same If P then Q not Q therefore G or not G formats.

If i were a believer, I'd gladly accept "a draw" in that debate, any day. LOL!

Because of the evidence she has that women are subject to breast cancer.
Then she is going to the doctor with the idea that her assumption that she has no cancer may be wrong. That is my point.


Water,
whoa, you don't have to go WILD. Does it matter? That depends. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter - only the idea matters.
If God exists it may matter quite a bit.

Poincare's thought experiment - you wake up tomorrow and the universe and everything in it has become ten times larger. Although some would say that since there is no reference, the universe is the same, they are glossing over the objective fact that the universe is ten times larger. Can you know this? no. Does it matter? maybe. Can you do anything about it? No. Knowledge on a level encompassing the transformed universe and another reference would be necessary.
Among other things, I consider God a moral reference from outside of the known, testable, experiential universe - to be applied to the idea of human existence. Man=animal. God+man = something else. Perhaps it is just an idea to rub against other ideas, perhaps it is something more.
The materialist has no point outside of explaining what is. The non-materialist is perhaps making points up out of what is not. I am just watching my life go by, and trying to explain it in a way which makes sense to me, because I am not lucky enough to be able to stick to the ones and twos.

Why are criminal justice courts established?... Isn't god there to punish who commit crime?... Why to put criminals, rapists, robbers, behind bars and take them for trials???... Why not leave them and say "God is there. Have faith. He will punish em.".... Why to make our judicial system when such a nice system is made by god of heaven and hell. If everyone have faith in god, then free Saddam Hussein from trial and let God take his trial. Free everyone from the jail then dismiss all the trials and just go to church or temples or mosques. God is there.... right? LOL... Is this an indirect proof of God's inablilty to deal with evil? in the mind of theists? or even this has got some backup story?

First off, we're not talking leprechauns or unicorns. They are legends and are vividly described, at that. And also said to be visual entities, or seen. God, to most, isn't claimed to be something we can see.
And as to proving God, look all around you. If you believe it all evolved from simpler life forms, then think back to when it was simplest. Take life today, if it had to represent a number, let's call it 1,234. And at 600 - prehistoric age of dinosaurs, 100 - single celled organisms, etc. So what's at 0? Is it creation. And what made that period of 1. Or .11111....and so on, for that matter. It all comes down to one simple organism, right? And what made that organism into matter in which we can observe? Fact is, we don't know. Atheists call it ?. Some religious call it God. What and where is the big deal in that? True, it may seem wacky when people (prophets) say they have made contact with the creator, but can you honestly say, these people (I'm speaking of the prophets of the Abrahamic God) are here to spread hate? So 0, for example, is it a number or nothing? So even if 0 is not a number, it is something. It makes a number a number. It tells something that it is not nothing. So prove 0 doesn't exist. You may not see it but it can be represented. 0 is the mother of all numbers as God is the father of all life and time. As I said before, if time is represented in a linear sequence, it all boils down to 0 hour. And what made that first second/millisecond time? Something is the father or birther of time and it all started at 0. 0, for the unimaginable, the unintelligible, or the mindless people out there, may not mean anything. But to the wise man, he knows that without nothing, a negative, absence, there will not be something, it will always be nothing. 0-1=0. Negative isn't always negative in the emotional perspective, it exists to let us know when something is, or when something is right, or when something is good, as a comparative value. I could go on, but if you're smart enough, you can take it to more levels if you know what I'm talking about. That is one of my many arguments. And the last time I will go over it (maybe, lol). Everyone always asks the same "god exists?" questions.

I dont see how, what I said is fairly rude, however I've never been one to suffer fools gladly.
stick and stones and all that, if people dont want the beliefs laughed at, then they should'nt have such stupid beliefs.

The statement was insulting and uncivil; hence, rude. Belief isn't just bound to the religious. It bound to every day life. Everyone (no exceptions) exercises some of the lamest beliefs on a daily basis. Do you believe what your boss just told you? Do you believe the advice your father gave you yesterday? Its too costly to apply evidence-base thinking to every day function and I gurantee everyone has a plethora of beliefs that can be laughed at. Will people interpret you as rude if you do? Certainly.

Again, the original paragraph had lots of good information in it and you're less likely to influence people the way you want with insulting / condescending / judgmental remarks.

what Does Is Matter Whether God Exists, Or Not?

many things. for example:

balalalalalal *kablooie*

Why to x-tians wear seat belts? Why get an education if they can be praising god all along, doesn't educationg seperate them from their precious time with god? Why do x-tians go to the doctor? Why do they enjoy sex if their god is watching them? Why do they pray, it's about gimmie gimmie gimmie, why not pray about what I, as a x-tian will do tomorrow for god. I think god serves more the purpose as a "Get Out Of Hell" card more than anything else.

Why to x-tians wear seat belts? Why get an education if they can be praising god all along, doesn't educationg seperate them from their precious time with god? Why do x-tians go to the doctor? Why do they enjoy sex if their god is watching them? Why do they pray, it's about gimmie gimmie gimmie, why not pray about what I, as a x-tian will do tomorrow for god. I think god serves more the purpose as a "Get Out Of Hell" card more than anything else.
you have an interesting view of x-tians. It is probably accurate for many human believers. It's funny how humans have ahard time doing things "right".
Also, beginner's prayers are usually about gimmie gimmie, even in buddhism where there is no external God.

whoa, you don't have to go WILD. Does it matter? That depends. If God doesn't exist, it doesn't matter - only the idea matters.
If God exists it may matter quite a bit.

I didn't go wild, I am bewildered.

To say anything specific about God, knowing it is indeed God I'm talking about,
it requires that I know God.

To know God, and know it is indeed God that I know --
requires more than I can presently grasp.

I can not imagine why it would matter whether God exists, or not.

Hence my bewilderment.

All "God-doesn't-exist" arguments can be summed up in one formula:


"Because things aren't the way I want them to be,
God doesn't exist."

My proof for the Non-Existence of God ?
Quite simple. I just asked him, please escuse me, I just asked HIM, but till now no answer. One answer = one God, two answers = two gods, ans so son. No answer = ?. Who knows... Or better, who cares ?

"Because things aren't the way I want them to be,
God doesn't exist."

That's not the reason I don't believe in god. I've come to accept my reality and the way the world works, I don't live by wishing things were better. I "work" to make things better in my life. It seems to me the theist believe in god with hopes and fantacy that everything goes their way. What the hell is prayer? but asking for.. wishing, hoping, that things work out to their advantage. It seems to be the firs thing said when an actor wins an award, "thang god" or a fighter beat the hell out of his oponent! "I had god on my side" :rolleyes: Anyhoo I rather reword your statement as follows:

Because things arent the way I want them to be, "I pray to god, that he makes my wishes come true"

Have you seen "Bruce All Mighty?" Good movie to watch, specially the prayer parts. :D Everyone won the Lotto! LOL...

Godless

All "God-doesn't-exist" arguments can be summed up in one formula:

"Because things aren't the way I want them to be,
God doesn't exist."No offence meant, but bollocks! :D

I don't believe "God exists" because it is irrational to have a belief based on zero evidence.

It has nothing to do with the way things are or are not.
And NO ONE - religious or otherwise - has everything the way they want.

All "God-doesn't-exist" arguments can be summed up in one formula:


"Because things aren't the way I want them to be,
God doesn't exist."


tha sounds more like the argument for why you always act like a deranged bitch on sciforums.

hey, Arete, prove that there doesn't exist a fluffy pink flesh eating bunny in the zeta dimension.
while you're at it, prove that zeta dimension doesn't exist too

Have you seen "Bruce All Mighty?" Good movie to watch, specially the prayer parts. :D Everyone won the Lotto! LOL...

Godless

Yah... everyone get the most expencive car... including Timmy Rational Redneck. :D

I find it humourous that the criticism to the challenge of "Prove God Doesn't Exist" is always "Prove [Insert Anything Here] Does Exist."

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof, just pointing out that the criticism for one is reproduced in the criticism itself.

Max

I find it humourous that the criticism to the challenge of "Prove God Doesn't Exist" is always "Prove [Insert Anything Here] Does Exist."

I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof, just pointing out that the criticism for one is reproduced in the criticism itself.

Max

why not try paying attention. the argument is that you cant prove a negative. its less of a criticism than it is a pointing out of how utterly useless it is to try to prove that something doesnt exist if there is no evidence that it ever existed. to attempt to prove that god doesnt exist is exactly like trying to prove that the invisible pink unicorn doesnt exist...stupid. on top of it, when someone makes a claim that something exists and then doesnt provide proof of it, their claim isnt taken seriously. thats how the world works.

There is no evidence that a god does exist.
However, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence, thus a god would be an unknown unknown, instead of an unknown known or a known unknown or a Known Thing. In other words, there is not really proof either way, and it is entirely and utterly unknowable, thus...agnosticism.

Nicely put - could've been something I might have said.

I'd only add that I, personally, am Undecided.

As Sam Clemens once said, "The Evidence Ain't All In Yet".

There is insufficient evidence to prove god does exist.

There is insufficient evidence to prove that god does not exist.

There seems to be some colloquial evidence for both conditions: enough to avoid making serious conclusions either way.

You can call me "Undecided" in that I have not made up my mind about god's existence or non-existence. I will await further information: I try to avoid taking anything on "faith" (hence, my moniker).

And soon enough, I'll be in a slightly better position to tell. [if there is an afterlife] Or not. [if there is not]

Being as how none of us Get Out Of Life Alive .... <heh>
... So why fret about it?

Don't tell me how the world works, that is beyond the scope of this forum and beyond your ability. And thanks, but I did pay attention. And "on top of it" it is a criticism. A criticism is defined as "a critical comment or judgment." The critical comment is that the statement "prove to me that God exists" is in your very eloquent wording, "stupid." But the reply used as the criticism is not "you can't prove the non-existence of something," (which would be the better approach) but is in fact: "Oh, yeah, well you prove to me that [a pink unicorn] exists." I hope that you can see the difference. One is circular, while the other is not...stupid.

Because, had you paid close attention to my argument, you wouldn't have glossed over the very important statement of, "I'm not trying to shift the burden of proof."

Don't tell me how the world works, that is beyond the scope of this forum and beyond your ability. And thanks, but I did pay attention. And "on top of it" it is a criticism. A criticism is defined as "a critical comment or judgment." The critical comment is that the statement "prove to me that God exists" is in your very eloquent wording, "stupid."

what are you talking about? nobody said it was stupid to try to prove that god exists. i said it was stupid to try to prove that something doesn't exist when there is already no indication that it would exist. so i reiterate...try paying attention to what is being said.
in addition to that, you have criticism and challenge mixed up. a criticism is exactly what you said it was, but the statement "prove that the invisible pink unicorn doesnt exist" isnt a criticism, its a challenge that ultimately demonstrates the futility of the entire proposition of proving a negative.

pointing out of how utterly useless it is to try to prove that something doesnt exist if there is no evidence that it ever existed

This is not a challenge, but a direct criticism. You even use the proper wording for an analytical reader to become readily aware that you are making a statement of criticism: "utterly useless."

I made an inference that wasn't well supported on your usage of the word "stupid."

i said it was stupid to try to prove that something doesn't exist when there is already no indication that it would exist.

That isn't a challenge, it's a criticism. This is a recognition of your motive.

I still maintain that you are being critical of his method of argument. His method might be a challenge, and you might have responded with a challenge, but the fact remains that your motive is to be critical of his admittedly bad avenue of argument. A challenge can be used to criticize, and that was the intended usage.

Max

This is not a challenge, but a direct criticism. You even use the proper wording for an analytical reader to become readily aware that you are making a statement of criticism: "utterly useless."


why dont you demonstrate how it is useful? how exactly do you go about trying to prove that something doesn't exist when there is no evidence for it? where do you come up with conclusive proof that something that doesn't exist really is not there? i'm pretty sure what im stating is less of an opinion and more of a fact.

Now you're asking me to fight another man's battle. I never took that on.

I fail to remember making any distinction between fact and opinion. I was merely pointing out that it seems that the criticism of the thread's original statement is answered with a statement (challenge) that falls victim to its own criticism.

For what I think is the THIRD time now, I once again repeat, I am not trying to switch the burden of proof. It is most definitely the person claiming something exists to prove its existence. But I wouldn't tell them that it is their burden by asking them to do the exact same thing they are asking you to do.

In essence, he is asking you to do his work for him. He feels content until you have proven him wrong.

If he believes in God because you can't prove to him that God doesn't exist, then his belief is very weak. I think that is the proper response.

Max

If he believes in God because you can't prove to him that God doesn't exist, then his belief is very weak. I think that is the proper response.


You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

Um?

And then...

No "and then!"

And then...

No "and then!"

And then...

You can not prove evolution so you can not say it exists. The universe can be used to prove God as much as evolution.

Actually, not true.

If you assume that your 5 senses actually report Reality.

And you assume that Other People are Real, and that THEIR 5 senses are at least as accurate as yours.

Then, using Science, you can pretty much take it as "given" that Evolution Happened.

Science and Scientific Method is based on the above (5 senses are real) and is only concerned with information obtained by the 5 senses. And, of course, any artificial extensions of the same (i.e. microscope, etc).

God, on the other hand is generally believed to be meta-physical or "super" natural. That is, composed up of "stuff" that is NOT percievable by any of your 5 senses.

Because of this, you can never prove God-as-being one way or another, as to my knowledge, there are NO methods currently to test ANYthing that is composed of meta-physical or supernatural "stuff". (whatever that is.)

So, your attempt at analogy is a false one: akin to comparing apples to rocks.

It IS a fact that Life [on Earth] evolved by some method or other (in that we have a very nice record of the slow progression of simple creatures up to the modern more complex ones). The only thing still up for debate, is the exact method of this change. The current "front runner" is the Theory of Evolution.

To Date, there are no facts supporting the existance of God (or the non-existance, either).