Proof that God does not exist.

[Jan Ardena]

Not necessarily concludes that there is no God, no. I have not made such a conclusion. Many self-proclaimed atheists on this site have not concluded as such.

Why haven't you made a conclusion?
Are you optimistic that one day you will realise God.. Personally I think that is smarter than simply accepting that God doesn't exist. But it is only a mindset.

The notion of holding out to see if suitable evidence becomes available, is like a dangling carrot constantly placed about two feetfin frontt of you. You think each steps gets you closer. But it never does. When eventually you get the carrot, it kind of seems likelit isn't worth the time and effort you put in.

Speaking for myself, I was a theist for a while. Then entered a prolonged period of skepticism while still believing, then became atheist.

What was your relationship to GodGoG whilewyou were theist?

Atheism can be either effect or cause,

How so?

My atheism, as cause, led me to this website. My questioning of what I had been told led to my atheism (effect).

That only shows that its not significant, and certainly not a cause. Atheism can't make you do anything. You are atheist, and every thing you do, say, and think, expresses that. If you become more accepting of God, you will find that it permeates through your expression, without having to think about it. IOW, you will change.

Do you feel that atheism is a religion? If so, on what basis?

No.
But neither is theism.

I'm not creating anything: I am describing a distinction that is already there. But that is neither here nor there with regard what I wrote. Or perhaps you can explain why you wrote this?

Traditionally it is accepted that people who believe in God, are religious. For example, If i go into the town centre, and publicly start speaking about the benefits of accepting God, most people will voew me as religious because I would talking about God.

If an atheist does the same, but talk obout the benefits of secularism, it would be no different, bar the subject matter.

Religion is everywhere, we just Don don't see it in that way.

When you join a religion, you are expected to change your lifestyle How you dress, what you eate drink. What music you listen to. Where you go, the company you keep, etc. It is exactly the same in secular land.

If there is no action resulting from the change then it is just lip service. If nothing changes in action then there will be no change in belief. And I am not referring to merely the trappings of a religion.

If you decide to stop commitingc adultery, you will see change. It doesn't mean you have to fake any kind of belief. You may have to communcommu with your wife more. But how is that taking bad thing. IfIeveryoneIstopped committing adultery, the change in the world would be immense.

Society is already fairly well based upon those, Jan.

No it's not. It relies on elements tjat are bad for living beings, for it to progress.
For example, there is no real need for mass animal slaughter, as itidoesinot benefit mankind. But it does so. Even destroying futile land.

In ignorance

In yourself.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I don't recall him saying that atheism is a religion. IfII remember correctly, he said something like belief in no god is a religion. What is your objection to that?

You are right, he didn't. Belief in no God is no more a religion than belief in God.

They believe, have faith, preach, teach, indoctrinate, hold meetings conventions, produce pamphlets, endeavour to change people's minds, write songs, books, make movies, plus other stuff.

All of them?? Or perhaps only those that have actually created an organisation (religion) to do that? Would you call theism a religion, or is it merely that upon which some religions are built? If you refer to atheism, or even "belief in no God" a religion then you may as well call theism a religion. If you would do that then we can continue arguing the point, but if you concede that theism is not itself a religion then hopefully the point is made that atheism and/or "belief in God" is not a religion.

Sorry Sarkus, but that is nonsense, and you know it.. Either there is a God, or there isn't, your either theist or atheist. There's no in between. That's something it appears atheists can't or won't comprehend.

And here we are again with you failing to comprehend what atheism is. Atheism: "lack belief in the existence of God(s)". Now, since I can not say whether God exists or not because I do not know (agnosticism), my rationality leads me to lack faith in the existence of God. Thus I am atheist.
It really is no trickier than that. No hidden trap door. And it has been explained to you time and time again.

You already have an answer, and you would be asking me to confirm it. Otherwise there would be no need to ask me. If you believe I am wearing a hat, then you need to explain why believe.

And how would I know that you were telling the truth? And why would I necessarily have an answer? Is one not allowed to say "I don't know?"

It could be that legend has it that I wear my hat every Thursday, and you ask to see if it is true. The answer you get, would be the correct answer.

Appeal to authority. Who is to say that you would be telling the truth?

Would you say that me not having a billion pounds is an effect.?

If you don't have a billion points then yes, this would be an effect. An effect of the life-choices you have made, of apparent randomness throughout your life, of many other factors.

How is your position of being absent of the belief, an effect, or cause? A word, atheist, simply describes, not prescribes, your position in relation to God.

Being a description does not preclude it from being a cause or an effect. My atheism is an effect of the experiences I have had, my thinking, etc. It is the cause of me initially visiting this website etc.

It doesn't matter what you say or think about God, you are fundamentally an atheist, and all that it entails. Until, of course, you're not. At that moment you will be a theist.

Ah, yes, just assert your position with no actual argument.

Try asking, and see if you get a reply.

Been there and done that, Jan.

Correct as in what? A theist is a person who believes in God If someone is a theist, how can they be incorrect?

With regard their concept of the God they believe in. One cannot believ in something without first formulating a concept of that thing, no matter how much you argue otherwise.

The problem is, for you, there is no God, so you are forced to be very skeptical of people who believe in God. But that is exactly what one would expect of an atheist, in that circumstance.

Again you have it backwards. I am skeptical, by nature, and that lead me to question things, and to my current position. It is not the other way round. I am not skeptical because I am atheist. My skepticism came first, while I believed.

Things are what they are, Sarkus.

Just a pity you don't have a particularly good grasp of what they are as they pertain to atheists.

You're right that you have no control over God. But you do have control over the straw god. You know, the one that always gets a bum rap from atheists.

No, I would have no control over that one, or else it wouldn't be God, would it.

This is nothing but atheist expression.
You have always been in this position. Now you can express it.

I have not always been in this position, which you'd know if you ever listened to what people told you.

This what atheist is, and always will be. As an atheist, you cannot proceed any further.

You create a puzzle, Jan: you say that an atheist can not proceed any further, yet you try to explain how it is that an atheist might become a believer, a theist. Either the atheist must believe (become a theist) in order to progress to becoming a believer, or you are stating that "once an atheist, always an atheist", which rather flies in the face of your oft exampled Anthony Flew.

Try it. See if you can have a discussion about God (not atheist concoction), that theistst even deists, believe in. See how long before it takes you to get to the natural atheist position.

We have been discussing the God you believe in for many years, Jan. Or are you finally admitting that you don't actually discuss?

Those concepts are trying to explain God in a way that other people can understand. God Is, despite that.

So you believe.

 

[Sarkus]

Why haven't you made a conclusion?

I see no convincing argument either way.

Are you optimistic that one day you will realise God.. Personally I think that is smarter than simply accepting that God doesn't exist. But it is only a mindset.

I wouldn't say optimistic, no. Why do you think it smarter? Why is it smarter to constantly hope for things that might never come than take a pragmatic approach and be happy with what you have? I guess it might depend on how much that optimism drives, but I can only speak for myself. If I am locked in a cell and no one tells me how long it will be for, there will come a time when I will realise I should at least make the most of what is in front of me rather than be too concerned about whether or not I will be released. That will come as and when it does.

The notion of holding out to see if suitable evidence becomes available, is like a dangling carrot constantly placed about two feetfin frontt of you. You think each steps gets you closer. But it never does. When eventually you get the carrot, it kind of seems likelit isn't worth the time and effort you put in.

The carrot is only as good as what people are willing or able to put in front of you. I have long ago stopped chasing them, unless I need the exercise.

What was your relationship to GodGoG whilewyou were theist?

Personal.

How so?

Explained above.

That only shows that its not significant, and certainly not a cause. Atheism can't make you do anything.

It rather depends upon your understanding of atheism, Jan. Given your rather different view...

You are atheist, and every thing you do, say, and think, expresses that.

And yet you say it isn't a cause.

If you become more accepting of God, you will find that it permeates through your expression, without having to think about it. IOW, you will change.

How so?

Traditionally it is accepted that people who believe in God, are religious. For example, If i go into the town centre, and publicly start speaking about the benefits of accepting God, most people will voew me as religious because I would talking about God.

If an atheist does the same, but talk obout the benefits of secularism, it would be no different, bar the subject matter.

No, they would see him as irreligious, as unpious. Certainly not as religious.

Religion is everywhere, we just Don don't see it in that way.

Let's please stick to a recognised definition of religion, shall we?

When you join a religion, you are expected to change your lifestyle How you dress, what you eate drink. What music you listen to. Where you go, the company you keep, etc. It is exactly the same in secular land.

How is it the same in secular land? Without the expectations of change that you say religion asks of you, how does secular society ask you to change? I'm confused by this notion.

If you decide to stop commitingc adultery, you will see change.

I wouldn't know.

It doesn't mean you have to fake any kind of belief. You may have to communcommu with your wife more. But how is that taking bad thing. IfIeveryoneIstopped committing adultery, the change in the world would be immense.

You seem to be confusing change being effected with the veracity of what caused that changed. How does accepting God, say, and all the changes that might lead to, lead to the veracity of God existing, other than through some form of appeal to consequence?

No it's not. It relies on elements tjat are bad for living beings, for it to progress.
For example, there is no real need for mass animal slaughter, as itidoesinot benefit mankind. But it does so. Even destroying futile land.

Eh? Where in the 10 Commandments does it say not to slaughter animals? Where does it say "Though shalt live only on the flora and fauna of the land"?

In yourself.

And you don't think atheists and theists are different in this regard???

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I think the thread has gone off the rails.
Jan can you offer any proof that God does not exist?
All this chat about this and that must make you happy as it gives recognotion to yhe possibility that there is a God...but talking about God does not make it real so before we indulge other discussion what can you offer...does God exist and what can you offer to support that fantasy.
Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

I think the thread has gone off the rails.

Then put it back.

Jan can you offer any proof that God does not exist?

The only one I can think of, is the one every atheist uses.
I can't see God, so God does not exist.
But like everyone else, I'm waiting for you to offer one, as the thread is your idea.

All this chat about this and that must make you happy as it gives recognotion to yhe possibility that there is a God...but talking about God does not make it real so before we indulge other discussion what can you offer...does God exist and what can you offer to support that fantasy.
Alex

If you believe God Is a fantasy, then show how. This is your big chance to show the world.

If you can show that God does not exist, other than the subjective proof I put earlier, I will be happy.
But we all know that's never going to happen. So the thread will inevitably go off the rails.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

"The only one I can think of, is the one every atheist uses.
I can't see God, so God does not exist."

How about my argument, that absent a non self contradicting or coherent definition, the word is meaningless?

It's as if you were asserting that it was silly of people to say square circles don't exist just because they can't see one.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are right, he didn't. Belief in no God is no more a religion than belief in God.

Okay.

All of them?? Or perhaps only those that have actually created an organisation (religion) to do that?

You don't have to be the creator of a religious organization, to be religious. You can be a follower.

Would you call theism a religion, or is it merely that upon which some religions are built?

It depends on what you think religion is. Sure, God centered religions are the most common basis for religion, but is not the only one.

Religion is an education process, insofar as it teaches it's adherence how to prepare them to achieve the goal. But what the goal is, depends on the leaders of the religions.

For example, the Buddhist religions differs from the Christian ones, is different from the Muslim ones.

They may have similar goals, but all have different methods of attainment.
The atheists who are religious, simply have a different goal.

If you refer to atheism, or even "belief in no God" a religion then you may as well call theism a religion. If you would do that then we can continue arguing the point, but if you concede that theism is not itself a religion then hopefully the point is made that atheism and/or "belief in God" is not a religion.

I agree that belief in anything, does not make it a religion. But I doubt that is what is meant when atheists, or atheism is a religion, even though it gives that impression.

The charge is relatively a modern one, primarily through folks like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett.

When atheists argue, they almost always, draw upon explanations, and ideas of these atheist evangelists.

Of course this doesn't mean all atheists follow, or even agree with these evangelists. But the bulk of them do, and as a result, more people are becoming explicit about their atheist with specific signatures.

There's a film where a christian goes on a university campus, asking whether or not they believe in God, or evolution. Most, if not all, which he interviewed, were atheist, and believed in science, enough to accept (neo-) dawinian evolution as fact.
But they couldn't defend their belief with anything other than faith in the scientist who themselves believe. It is this type of faith, and devotion to the scientific explanation of some scientists, that is deemed religious.

And here we are again with you failing to comprehend what atheism is. Atheism: "lack belief in the existence of God(s)".

I am aware of what atheism is. It is like theism, but without the belief in God. The question is, why are you without belief.

We know it's not a choice, as we cannot choose what we believe, or not. Lest we forget. If you forget, then there is nothing to remember. There is no that no thing you've forgotten until your memory is revived.

Now, since I can not say whether God exists or not because I do not know (agnosticism), my rationality leads me to lack faith in the existence of God. Thus I am atheist.

So your rationality concludes (albeal temporarily) that there is no God, as opposed to their being a God, which is why you're atheist.

And how would I know that you were telling the truth? And why would I necessarily have an answer

Either you accept I'm telling the truth, or not.
You wouldn't "necessarily" have an answer but I would assume there is a reason why you ask me. You could ring me to remind me to where one, because you think I might forget. You could easily think I'm not wearing one, as an example.

Appeal to authority. Who is to say that you would be telling the truth?

I would be.

If you don't have a billion points then yes, this would be an effect. An effect of the life-choices you have made, of apparent randomness throughout

That wouldn't be because I don't have a billion pounds. I have to make life-choices whether I have a billion pounds or not.

Me not having a billion pounds effects nothing. I am the the one that causes effects.

Ah, yes, just assert your

Show where I'm mistaken.

Been there and done that, Jan.

What was your response to God's response?

With regard their concept of the God they believe in. One cannot believ in something without first formulating a concept of that thing, no matter how much you argue otherwise.

This is an atheist perspective. The idea of God as being wholly a separate being, operating in time and space, the way we do. This means that if God exists, there should some kind of evidence of this being. Of course we don't see sant man in the sky, or when we look into our physical hearts, we see no man type being in there. So the atheist is forced to conclude there is no God. At least currently.

Theists hold concepts of God, but we place our belief in God. The more read about, and talktabout God, the closer we get. So we are happy to develop our concept.

Just a pity you don't have a particularly good grasp of what they are as they pertain to atheists.

Yet you cannot explain where my grasp is lacking. You simply assert, that it is.
Because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

I have not always been in this position, which you'd know if you ever listened to what people told you.

You claim to have been theist at one time. Nothing about what you say gives that impression. Just saying you are, or were a theist, doesn't, mean you were.

You create a puzzle, Jan: you say that an atheist can not proceed any further, yet you try to explain how it is that an atheist might become a believer, a theist

What I mean is, that in a discussion, or debated about God, the atheist is extremely limited. YouYonly need to look at professional debates. They have to support it with lighthearted essential, or comedy, or mockery, once they reach their limit.

The atheist can become theistt but it requires a surrendering process, which most atheists refuse to do.
A theist who becomes atheist, has to forget God. A theist has to back slide, and indulge themselves into mundane activity, to achieve that. Otherwise they go through turmoil.

We have been discussing the God you believe in for many years, Jan. Or are you finally admitting that you don't actually discuss?

We haven't been discussing the God I believe in. We've been discussing the atheist straw God, trying to bring the subject matter to the God of scripture.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

How about my argument, that absent a non self contradicting or coherent definition, the word is meaningless?

Say what now?

It's as if you were asserting that it was silly of people to say square circles don't exist just because they

It's a contradiction spidergoat.
The clues are in the names of the subjects.

There is nothing contradictory about God, unless you're atheist.

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Say what now?



It's a contradiction spidergoat.
The clues are in the names of the subjects.

There is nothing contradictory about God, unless your atheist.

Jan.

Then tell me what it is without using impossible terms.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Then tell me what it is without using impossible terms.

What, what is?

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

What, what is?

Jan.

I knew it was a mistake to respond to you. Get thee back behind the grey wall of ignore.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I knew it was a mistake to respond to you. Get thee back behind the grey wall of ignore.

Good talk.

Jan.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

False choices. There are thousands of ways to be wrong, one for each religion you disbelieve. Maybe it was the Muslim heaven you failed to enter, maybe it was Valhalla.

Cthulhu's Corollary to Pascal's Wager: What if you chose the wrong god?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

The only one I can think of, is the one every atheist uses.
I can't see God, so God does not exist.

I thank you for that Jan, as you remind me it is that simple.

With all the talk about this and that it is easy to forget that the usual onus of proof placed upon someone has been ignored by those who can only claim their fantasy of God is real.

Their inability and indeed stubborn reluctance to offer anything in support of their baseless assertion is enough for a reasonable man to reject their claim, such rejection being in step with evidence rules relating to civil legal matters...and by offerring absolutely no evidence of their claim that there is a God the theist does not even come close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt such a standard that would be appropriate in criminal matters before a court.

So theistis not only refuse to provide evidence but lack the ability to understand why it would be necessary to do so...their ignorance can be confused for arogance but sadly it is ignorance that is at play here.

If you believe God Is a fantasy, then show how.

Now if I was as dilegent as Micheal I would present a dictionary definition setting out what "fantasy" covers.

To do just that would certainly have any reasonable person include God fitting perfectly yhe definition of fantasy.

Probably the best evidence of fantasy is evident by the established fact that no one has presented any clue as to why God may be anything more than fantasy.

The problem is for the theist is that to claim that their fantasy is real they create an onus of proof that they obviously can never meet.

It is the theist who turns their God into a fantasy and leaves him there in fantasy land refusing to meet their burden of proof.

However they rush to move the discussion to considering the qualities of god, his plan, what he might expect of humans all in an effort to pad out their fantasy and move focus well away from the fact they have not done anything to satisfy any reasonable onus of proof to take their made up notions past mere fiction and fantacy and certainly have done nothing to have normal people think they are more than highly delusional.

Alex

 

[Sarkus]

It depends on what you think religion is...

So you're going with the rather metaphoric version of being religious. Fair enough.

I am aware of what atheism is. It is like theism, but without the belief in God.

So it is nothing? Like table salt without sodium chloride?

The question is, why are you without belief.

Lack of anything convincing to suggest that there either is or is not a God.

We know it's not a choice, as we cannot choose what we believe, or not.

But we can choose to question what we believe. We can choose to think critically about what we do believe.

Lest we forget. If you forget, then there is nothing to remember. There is no that no thing you've forgotten until your memory is revived.

???

So your rationality concludes (albeal temporarily) that there is no God, as opposed to their being a God, which is why you're atheist.

No, I do not conclude, even temporarily, that there is no God. That is merely what you wish my position to be.

Either you accept I'm telling the truth, or not.
You wouldn't "necessarily" have an answer but I would assume there is a reason why you ask me. You could ring me to remind me to where one, because you think I might forget. You could easily think I'm not wearing one, as an example.

Indeed. But on what on basis should one accept that you are telling the truth? Blind faith?
Without convincing reason to accept what you are saying as truth, I would rationally conclude "I don't know" rather than believe one option or the other. Why wouldn't you do the same?

I would be.

Circular reasoning.

That wouldn't be because I don't have a billion pounds. I have to make life-choices whether I have a billion pounds or not.

Yes, but the actual life choices, randomness, innate capabilities (which inform your life choices etc) have led to the lack of a billion pounds.

Me not having a billion pounds effects nothing. I am the the one that causes effects.

If you're going to be this inane with your arguments, Jan, we can stop now. Is that what you want?
Your current situation informs your choices. This is inescapable. Having a billion pounds or not having a billion pounds does impact the choices we make. If I want to donate a million to a charity, not having a billion pounds rather scuppers that... it thus affects what we can do and the choices we can make. Hence it is an effect.

Show where I'm mistaken.

I have no intention of revisiting almost every single thread and discussion on the issue, Jan.

What was your response to God's response?

What response?

This is an atheist perspective. The idea of God as being wholly a separate being, operating in time and space, the way we do.

Stop it, Jan. You are being dishonest. I have not stated that the concept of God need be "wholly a separate being" etc. Don't put words in my mouth. If your concept of God is one that "is" then that is still your concept, whether or not it matches reality.

This means... [snip]... currently.

Ignored as irrelevant.

Theists hold concepts of God, but we place our belief in God. The more read about, and talktabout God, the closer we get. So we are happy to develop our concept.

Well, at least you admit you have a concept of God, Jan. We're making progress.

Yet you cannot explain where my grasp is lacking. You simply assert, that it is.
Because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

Whenever you make shit up about atheism, Jan, your grasp is shown to be like salt, but without the sodium chloride.

You claim to have been theist at one time. Nothing about what you say gives that impression. Just saying you are, or were a theist, doesn't, mean you were.

No True Scotsman.
I am not here to convince you, Jan. Either accept or do not. But don't assume I am lying unless you can demonstrate that I am.

What I mean is, that in a discussion, or debated about God, the atheist is extremely limited. YouYonly need to look at professional debates. They have to support it with lighthearted essential, or comedy, or mockery, once they reach their limit.

Limited? No, not really. Unless you can get part the foundations there is little point in moving further. And the foundations are well within the boundaries of any limit you perceive.

The atheist can become theistt but it requires a surrendering process, which most atheists refuse to do.

Believe to believe, Jan. Enter the cycle to be caught by it.
However, it is not that the atheist refuses, but rather that they simply can not do it, no more than they can simply choose to believe.

A theist who becomes atheist, has to forget God. A theist has to back slide, and indulge themselves into mundane activity, to achieve that. Otherwise they go through turmoil.

They don't need to forget God at all. They merely need to lack conviction that God actually exists. Or are you intending to equate the two?

We haven't been discussing the God I believe in. We've been discussing the atheist straw God, trying to bring the subject matter to the God of scripture.

Cop out, Jan. And utterly dishonest.
You don't believe God to be the cause of all? You don't believe in a God that "is"?

You are utterly pathetic, Jan.
And thus endeth the discussion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Good talk.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I thank you for that Jan, as you remind me it is that simple.

Yes. Very simple.

With all the talk about this and that it is easy to forget that the usual onus of proof placed upon someone has been ignored by those who can only claim their fantasy of God is real.

You claim God is a fantasy, yet you offer no proof, in a thread created by you, entitled proof that God does not exist.
The irony!

Their inability and indeed stubborn reluctance to offer anything in support of their baseless assertion is enough for a reasonable man to reject their claim, such rejection being in step with evidence rules relating to civil legal matters...and by offerring absolutely no evidence of their claim that there is a God the theist does not even come close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt such a standard that would be appropriate in criminal matters before a court.

Anyway!

Where is this proof that God does not exist?

So theistis not only refuse to provide evidence but lack the ability to understand why it would be necessary to do so...their ignorance can be confused for arogance but sadly it is ignorance that is at play here.

You only need to type in 'evidence for God', in Google to know your talking nonsense.

Maybe your not cut out to provide proof, or even a quarter decent explanation.

It is the theist who turns their God into a fantasy and leaves him there in fantasy land refusing to meet their burden of proof.

That's so cute.
Where is the proof that God does not exist? You should really trytand come up wothwat least one, seeing as it is your thread.

Even I came up with one (simple, but relevant from that perspective).

I'm going to hold my breath until you present one. Please don't take too long.

However they rush to move the discussion to considering the qualities of god, his plan, what he might expect of humans all in an effort to pad out their fantasy and move focus well away from the fact they have not done anything to satisfy any reasonable onus of proof to take their made up notions past mere fiction and fantacy and certainly have done nothing to have normal people think they are more than highly delusional.

You're not being reasonable Alex.
I suggest you try to be reasonable.

Jan.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You claim God is a fantasy, yet you offer no proof, in a thread created by you, entitled proof that God does not exist.
The irony!

Well I suggest that the irony is that you, the supporter of the fantasy makes such demands whilst still not completing the first step of giving a reason why you offer more than a fantasy.

Where is this proof that God does not exist?

I laid it out and you missed it. What more proof do you need.

You only need to type in 'evidence for God', in Google to know your talking nonsense.

What proof do you refer to ..crying statues, pan cakes with a burn that folk fantasize is JC...
All that stuff is so much like UFO accounts...
OK given there is so much proof why is it you never offer any?
Is it that embarrassing to be in a group who think they see God in a fried piece of bread and silly enough to grasp at such straws.

If you have anything go ahead but I certainly wont hold my breath.

Maybe your not cut out to provide proof, or even a quarter decent explanation.

Back at ya.

Where is the proof that God does not exist?

You really did miss it didnt you...already proved.
The onus nevertheless still remains with you to prove your made up fantasy.
You cant do that so you sidetrack all over but I will still poont out the burden is with you.
My proof is clear precise and acceptable in a court of law.

I'm going to hold my breath until you present one. Please don't take too long.

That is an interesting approach to getting your own way ... change that tactic when you notice you have turned blue.

You're not being reasonable Alex

Now I know you are joking.
Being reasonable is but one of the noble qualities gained when one reaches enlightenment.
You must envy such but you to could be reasonable by not expecting others to accept your delusions as fact.
Just ask yourself ..is it reasonable to make something up and then present it as fact as you do with a made up God...the answer is...certainly not reasonable.

Talking about google..I searched for strange practises in the past for religious folk...so hete is some trivia for you...believers would lick the wounds and eat the scabs off sick folk in the belief they were doing a good deed...that merely indicates that belief sometimes be very wrong.
But how about that just showd how ignorant folk can be I guess.

Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Now if I was as dilegent as Micheal I would present a dictionary definition setting out what "fantasy" covers.

Thumbs up

Any way I have decided I have found a way out of THIS stupidity and into another

In my stupidity god does exist and here is a photo of him



I present to you god Starman

He was conceived on Earth and made from the elements of Earth

He rose into the heavens on a chariot of fire which made the ground shake from its mighty roar

He now resides in heaven and is traveling to Mars to spread the good word

What else could he be but a god?

The Church of Starman will hold its first meeting on the Moon as soon as we have collected enough from the go-fund-me site



Any questions?
Case closed???

 

[river]

Cthulhu's Corollary to Pascal's Wager: What if you chose the wrong god?

THAT is what has been happening all along .

Any god that will see a flood about to happen and does nothing to protect Humanity from this flood ( except of course Enki , who is the one who warns noah about this pending flood , hence the build the ship ) is the WRONG god .