Proof that God does not exist.

[Vociferous]

I have often thought that Jan's thing was to keep the arguement going as to do so kept the consideration a God front of mind and therefore somehow lend a presence for a delusion.

But we have been conned... There is nothing and yet we have been silly enough to search for that nothing whereas to simply ignore the delusion hindering the theist we dont let their delusion be elevated to anything more than delusion.

Physics seems to have found quite a bit to know about nothing...source of vacuum fluctuations, possible source of big bang, etc.. Prior to that, we only had philosophy to tell us "nothing" was anything more than delusion. One might say that philosophers keeping the consideration of nothing front of the mind may have lent to some understanding in physics.

Jan avoids defining God in any way else he be pressed for specific evidence.

Avoiding definition leaves the delusion crying for rejection and in that rejection via our involvement we breath life into the delusion.

And so I shall not give the delusion any recognition by rejection as to do so causes the delusion to grow... By ignoring the delusion it will fade away.

Court-wise, what evidence do you have that ignoring might cause a delusion to fade?

My concern has always been that a lie exists and that children are harmed from their brain washing.
...
And as to the cruelty I see suffered by the children I must realise there is nothing I can do to change the objectionable tolerance extended to theists that entitles them to abuse their children.

It is a shame and the cruelty will continue.

The repetition of lies concerning history will continue, the superstition will be tolerated because faith will not be questioned nor will the absurd customs associated therewith be stopped.

What cruelty, suffering, and harm?
Have Judaeo-Christian values, largely an extension of Aristotelian values, not been more good than bad for western civilization?

 

[DaveC426913]

You can't prove that such a thing does not exist.

For all we know, God lives 10 billion light years away on lonely planet, and has been taking a break from messing with Earth affairs for 4 billion years.

What you can do is demonstrate that, in all we see in the universe, nothing requires God to exist, therefore, it is more likely that it does not exist than that it does.

However, such questions are pointless. We can't prove that a teapot doesn't exist on that planet 10 billion ly away either. But we can build a voluminous understanding of the universe , with a model that is wholly consistent in its machinations whether or not that teapot exists. Or God exists.

And that's what science is about.

Relativity, chemistry, economics, orbital mechanics, life, and the 4 forces of the universe do not rise and fall based on the existence of a teapot that has no effect on them.
Science moves on implacably, with or without distant teapots and gods.

Religion, the other hand, (this being the religion forum) sees it differently. As might philosophy.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

One might say that philosophers keeping the consideration of nothing front of the mind may have lent to some understanding in physics.

I certainly hope philosophy does not drive physics but I often wonder about the big bang given it provides a happy opportunity to accomodate, but not deal with, creation.

Maybe physics is lead by philosophy...I dont care.

Court-wise, what evidence do you have that ignoring might cause a delusion to fade?

Evidence?

You ask me for evidence?

Dont you think you are missing the inconvenient fact that on the other side there is no evidence?

Do you miss the fact that any call for evidence is never answered...never ever.

And you ask for evidence.

I see no need to provide evidence of anything because all and every call I have ever made seeking evidence has been ignored.

So if we are to proceed to review evidence I repeat...if a theist wishes to introduce a delusion as reality provide evidence...but until they accept the notion of evidence and the necessity of providing it to support their delusion...please dont ask.

Or are you joking?

Are you being the straight man presenting your lines so that I can make the obvious and only responce.

Well thank you I see the humour.

What cruelty, suffering, and harm?

If you need to ask that suggests providing you with details will only be a waste of my time. Ever wondered why so many folk are screwed up when it comes to sex? Ever wondered or are you not able to think about sex as a natural functuon that should not be key to some crazy notion surrounding...forget it, you wont get it.

Have Judaeo-Christian values, largely an extension of Aristotelian values, not been more good than bad for western civilization?

Rather than ask such a question perhaps you should research the matter.

If you support the values I doubt you will consider the horrors so I see no point in trying to teach you to objectively review history.

If you wish to pick decent values from the inaccuracies and incorrect history of the scriptures I suggest you do so but know that it is your ability to select, which values, are decent rather than not decent, that opperates not anything else...otherwise, if you buy the whole bundle then you must consider slavery as a decent value...oh I guess you did not realise that the support offerred by the scriptures to endorse slavery resulted in any harm...or would you place the economic development above the misery dished out to so many humans...

Do you think women also benefited from the scriptures?

Get real.

The biggest problem with the whole deal, religion generally, is those involved are blind to the problems, and happily ignore valid critism hiding behind a lame plea that "its my faith" as if it is an answer all excuse for avoidance of reality...that is their problem not mine, it is their intelligence they degrade, it is their children they terrify and confuse, it is their history they distort...it is their life they waste whilst waiting for the next one...I dont care.

I was only trying to help present the truth but clearly there is no place for truth when we deal with religion.


Thank you for participating in this thread.

Alex

 

[river]

Big Bang is all about metaphysics

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Big Bang is all about metaphysics

What made-up definition of "metaphysics" are you using?

 

[river]

What made-up definition of "metaphysics" are you using?

Metaphysics , fundamental nature of reality .

 

[Vociferous]

I certainly hope philosophy does not drive physics but I often wonder about the big bang given it provides a happy opportunity to accomodate, but not deal with, creation.

Maybe physics is lead by philosophy...I dont care.

It doesn't drive but definitely informs physics, especially in this time of casting about for advances.
Philosophy was the impetus for natural philosophy, which became science.

What do you mean "wonder about the big bang"? Does that mean you doubt it?

Do you dismiss philosophy as you do religion?

Evidence?

You ask me for evidence?

Dont you think you are missing the inconvenient fact that on the other side there is no evidence?

Do you miss the fact that any call for evidence is never answered...never ever.

And you ask for evidence.

I see no need to provide evidence of anything because all and every call I have ever made seeking evidence has been ignored.

So if we are to proceed to review evidence I repeat...if a theist wishes to introduce a delusion as reality provide evidence...but until they accept the notion of evidence and the necessity of providing it to support their delusion...please dont ask.

Chill dude. You made a psychological claim about delusion, unrelated to the question of god. If you don't care to justify that, how are your claims different from theirs? If you use their excuses yourself, are you implying they are worthy excuses? Your argument's strength would seem to be in your willingness to offer and discuss evidence. Refusing to do so seems to lower your position to one of parity with theirs. It's not a good look.

If you need to ask that suggests providing you with details will only be a waste of my time. Ever wondered why so many folk are screwed up when it comes to sex? Ever wondered or are you not able to think about sex as a natural functuon that should not be key to some crazy notion surrounding...forget it, you wont get it.

Seems someone demanding evidence wouldn't be hypocritical when asked to provide a little.
Please, go ahead. What sort of sex problems does religion cause? I agree that sex is natural, and religion is often sexually repressive.

Rather than ask such a question perhaps you should research the matter.

If you support the values I doubt you will consider the horrors so I see no point in trying to teach you to objectively review history.

What horrors? Look, if you can't define your harm, suffering, cruelty, and horrors, why should anyone take your demands for a definition of god seriously?

If you wish to pick decent values from the inaccuracies and incorrect history of the scriptures I suggest you do so but know that it is your ability to select, which values, are decent rather than not decent, that opperates not anything else...otherwise, if you buy the whole bundle then you must consider slavery as a decent value...oh I guess you did not realise that the support offerred by the scriptures to endorse slavery resulted in any harm...or would you place the economic development above the misery dished out to so many humans...

Do you think women also benefited from the scriptures?

Get real.

Do you know what presentism is? It's where we interpret past events using current norms.
I don't think the bible is the unerring word of god. Just the writings of religious people, in their time and norms.
As with any writings, we can separate the norms that don't apply to the modern world.
Do the norms depicted in Huck Finn make that a worthless book? Or can we take the good and realize that world has progressed since then?
Now if you're talking about Islam, sure. They currently espouse slavery and heavy inequality of the sexes.

The biggest problem with the whole deal, religion generally, is those involved are blind to the problems, and happily ignore valid critism hiding behind a lame plea that "its my faith" as if it is an answer all excuse for avoidance of reality...that is their problem not mine, it is their intelligence they degrade, it is their children they terrify and confuse, it is their history they distort...it is their life they waste whilst waiting for the next one...I dont care.

I was only trying to help present the truth but clearly there is no place for truth when we deal with religion.

Terrify and confuse?
Lead by example, mate.
Otherwise, there seems little room for truth on either side of the discussion of religion.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You can't prove that such a thing does not exist.

On the basis that the standard of proof is no more than that required at law and that is...beyond reasonable doubt..you most certainly can.

Theists roll out you cant prove a negative because they think that gives their delusion arms and legs... cut them off demanding only what is acceptable via our law.

For all we know, God lives 10 billion light years away on lonely planet, and has been taking a break from messing with Earth affairs for 4 billion years.

Not knowing does not invite speculation to be presented as fact and I am not suggesting that is what you do here but there are others who speculate and at some point believe their speculation is reality.

But I do like your post.
Alex

 

[DaveC426913]

On the basis that the standard of proof is no more than that required at law and that is...beyond reasonable doubt..you most certainly can.

That would be an inappropriate form of proof here.

 

[Vociferous]

On the basis that the standard of proof is no more than that required at law and that is...beyond reasonable doubt..you most certainly can.

Since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only legally used to pronounce guilt, how do you justify a claim of belief as guilt?
What is the legal framework here? Fraud?

 

[Michael 345]

Alex

When you kick started this thread I thought it would flow along the lines of a court room drama

For and against presenting a case and other side producing rebuttal

Thought you would be the judge welding the gravel, hence the Me Lord

It never got there. It's a water cooler squabble in the corridor

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Philosophy was the impetus for natural philosophy, which became science

Yes but I dont think that today there is a connection.

Does that mean you doubt it?

It is a model, it is currently our best model but in truth I simply can not accept the "inflation" part.
And sure what would I know but I dont buy the idea that the universe could grow from zip to near all in less than a second and frankly I am surprised others dont think that idea is over the top.
And I dont think I am the only person on the planet who is unhappy with the idea of inflation.

I dont accept that the model could be correct on that aspect ... I hold that belief.

I can not offer a better model but that does not mean I cant be skeptical about inflation.

Do you dismiss philosophy as you do religion?

I like reading Karl Popper.

Refusing to do so seems to lower your position to one of parity with theirs. It's not a good look.

I really dont care.

Seems someone demanding evidence wouldn't be hypocritical when asked to provide a little.

Why not.
So we have a discussion and they dont provide evidence and on that basis I say well dont expect me to play by the rules and you find that strange...find it strange I dont care.

Please, go ahead. What sort of sex problems does religion cause? I agree that sex is natural, and religion is often sexually repressive.

If you dont buy my propostion on face value you may reject it.
Lets try it their way...prove that sexual problems are not the result of religious teaching...And sure that is ans supposed to be purposely vague.

What horrors? Look, if you can't define your harm, suffering, cruelty, and horrors, why should anyone take your demands for a definition of god seriously?

Show where I am wrong...is that not how the game is played?
And if folk dont take my demands for proof seriously I dont care...the fact that all demands for proof of a God are never met will stand irrespective of others views on me.

Do the norms depicted in Huck Finn make that a worthless book?

I dont read fiction and books of fiction hold no value for me at all.

I don't think the bible is the unerring word of god.

And you would be right.

As with any writings, we can separate the norms that don't apply to the modern world.

Sure you can in fact there is no way to see the bible as meaningful unless you do a personal edit...but really why the need to hold it up as of any use when you can make up what you like to fit your world...can you not work out a decent code of conduct by yourself?

Terrify and confuse?

You dont understand those words...please look them up.

Otherwise, there seems little room for truth on either side of the discussion of religion.

I really dont have a problem. If you dont think I speak the truth you need not accept anything I say.
Like everyone else when discussing religion I present a mere opinion you can agree or not.

Thank you for presenting an interesting outlook.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

That would be an inappropriate form of proof here.

I agree as it would end the game pretty fast.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

It never got there. It's a water cooler squabble in the corridor

Of course.

But have you considered that I may just being sneeky, causing a disturbance to bring the croud in before I start crushing people..Jan..for example.

Well just in case you may think I am being sneeky I say that I am not and would never think of crushing Jan ever...where do you get these ideas?

Actually lets do the court room thing.
You being impartial should be the judge.
What will go on the summons? Who will we name the defendent what punishement shall be dished out to Jan.
Yes a fair trial is what we need.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Since "beyond a reasonable doubt" is only legally used to pronounce guilt, how do you justify a claim of belief as guilt?

I see your point.
Perhaps we should go for the standard of proof required in civil proceedings which is what a reasonable man would arrive at...I am a reasonable man so lets go for the civil court standard...can you guess what the judge will say...Michael what do you recon can we get this case closed before morning tea?

Fraud?

Add that to the charges..well spotted.
Alex

 

[Vociferous]

It is a model, it is currently our best model but in truth I simply can not accept the "inflation" part.
And sure what would I know but I dont buy the idea that the universe could grow from zip to near all in less than a second and frankly I am surprised others dont think that idea is over the top.
And I dont think I am the only person on the planet who is unhappy with the idea of inflation.

I dont accept that the model could be correct on that aspect ... I hold that belief.

I can not offer a better model but that does not mean I cant be skeptical about inflation.

So your incredulity spreads to science, was well as religion.
And you hold beliefs you wouldn't be able to legally evidence either.
I agree that no alternative is necessary for skepticism. For instance, science doesn't need to evidence an alternative to creation for anyone to be skeptical of it.
But just as you may be skeptical of inflation, the religious may be skeptical of there being no god.

I really dont care.

A pattern emerges.
Why should anyone take you seriously if you have no more interest in justifying your claims than the religious do?

Why not.
So we have a discussion and they dont provide evidence and on that basis I say well dont expect me to play by the rules and you find that strange...find it strange I dont care.

Hey, if you're happy conceding to their modus operandi, that's your prerogative.

If you dont buy my propostion on face value you may reject it.
Lets try it their way...prove that sexual problems are not the result of religious teaching...And sure that is ans supposed to be purposely vague.

Show where I am wrong...is that not how the game is played?
And if folk dont take my demands for proof seriously I dont care...the fact that all demands for proof of a God are never met will stand irrespective of others views on me.

Sorry dude, you've lost all your intellectual authority to demand evidence. You've just demonstrated that their tactic is worthwhile for you to emulate.

I really dont have a problem. If you dont think I speak the truth you need not accept anything I say.
Like everyone else when discussing religion I present a mere opinion you can agree or not.

Couldn't have been said any better by a religious person.

 

[Vociferous]

I see your point.
Perhaps we should go for the standard of proof required in civil proceedings which is what a reasonable man would arrive at...I am a reasonable man so lets go for the civil court standard...can you guess what the judge will say...Michael what do you recon can we get this case closed before morning tea?

Okay. In the preponderance of evidence for fraud, is the testimony of 80% of the world admissible?
Are people who claim Napoleon was short (even though he was actually tall for a Frenchman of his time) also guilty of fraud?
Since intent (mens rea) isn't a requirement in civil law, wouldn't everyone be guilty of some fraud for erroneous beliefs?

 

[Michael 345]

Who will we name the defendent what punishement shall be dished out to Jan.
Yes a fair trial is what we need.
Alex

Ummm
OK
If if if you intend to reboot
1/ Make a CLEAR statement of the charge ie (I am presuming god is the accused) so the charge would be like "god you are hereby charged as being non existent. How do you plead?.............. Let the record show in the absence of a plea being given a plea of Not Guilty is formally entered"

2/ is the prosecution ready to address the jury? (the posters)

etc etc

If you post put down your side at start of post ie PROSECUTION Me Lord "Blah blah blah"
DEFENCE Me Lord "Blah blah blah"
JUDGE Prosecution will call first witness
etc etc

Better you pick another judge (or allow it panel of Judges) - Jan is on my Iggy list

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But just as you may be skeptical of inflation, the religious may be skeptical of there being no god.

Good so there is no problem.

Why should anyone take you seriously if you have no more interest in justifying your claims than the religious do?

Why should they indeed ...no one has to take me seriously however if they wish to that is up to them.

Hey, if you're happy conceding to their modus operandi, that's your prerogative.

I am happy with everything I am sorry if that was not clear.

Sorry dude, you've lost all your intellectual authority to demand evidence.

No problems irrespective of my demands having authority or not no evidence will be presented by theists but somehow I dont think it is my credibility that is at stake...can you guess whos credibility is at stake...

You've just demonstrated that their tactic is worthwhile for you to emulate.

On the bright side you at least seem to recognise that they employ a tactic...shame as evidence would be so helpful.

Couldn't have been said any better by a religious person.

Thank you.

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

is the testimony of 80% of the world admissible?

Certainly admissable if they agree with me.

Are people who claim Napoleon was short (even though he was actually tall for a Frenchman of his time) also guilty of fraud?

Absolutely and they should be punished...was he a Frenchman?

Since intent (mens rea) isn't a requirement in civil law, wouldn't everyone be guilty of some fraud for erroneous beliefs?

Absolutely.
Alex