|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Proof for God's Non-existance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Atheists would say there is no-God. And to the Theist they would inquire on his proof that there is-God. But I would like to wonder if Atheists can walk their own walk, practice what they preach. I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not.
Jon Edited by Jon, : added subtitle | removed message to admins In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ En el mundo hay multitud de idiomas, y cada uno tiene su propio significado. - I Corintios 14:10_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A devout people with its back to the wall can be pushed deeper and deeper into hardening religious nativism, in the end even preferring national suicide to religious compromise. - Colin Wells Sailing from Byzantium
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNem Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Well, Jon, even the most hard-headed atheist would likely agree that if something does not exist, its unfalsifiable. So, I don't know how much play you'll get in this thread. At most, the atheist can reason that there is no good reason to assume God exists anymore than (s)he should reason that a flying purple elephant exists in the 3rd dimension. No, they can't prove its non-existence, but they'll just say that there is no good reason to assume otherwise. "I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." -Leonardo da Vinci
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Proof? Who needs proof? It's just that (apologies to Laplace) I have no need for that hypothesis. I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Jon wrote:
I would like to wonder if Atheists can walk their own walk, practice what they preach. I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread.
I quess I'll be the first to tell you, Jon, that you can't prove a negative. btw: What do you suppose Atheists preach, Atheism? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But then they are not Atheists; they are Agnostics. From Wikipedia on Atheism:
quote: Atheism does not just sit back an nonchalantly decide not to participate. Atheism stands right up and forcefully declares that there is no God. I just want to know what evidence such Atheists use to come to that conclusion. I should make a note here, now. This thread is not about the definition of Atheist. If you want to call yourself an Atheist even though you declare beliefs more fitting of Agnosticism, go ahead. For the purposes of this thread, Atheist will be defined using the definition given to us by Wikipedia. If you do not feel that you fit that definition as a self-proclaimed Atheist, then that's fine; you are free not to participate. But if you do fit that definition given here, then I would like that you give your evidence. Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2542 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
I'll bite.
First, why would you like to wonder if the atheist can do these things? You are wondering. Your passive voice is very annoying. This also might be why you have to look up at what you wrote to follow what you were saying. Here's your problem. What's the difference between god acting gravity out and gravity acting itself out with out any god existing? Or that you have actually spoken to god and not imagined it? In other words, how can you qualify god? The atheist's evidence for no god is the lack of evidence for god. Would you think the mastadon existed if there was no evidence for it? Would you even think that a mastadon might exist, even if there was no indication it ever did? Until the theist can show concrete evidence for god (they haven't yet, especially if you listen to rob's claptrap), the logical position is that god doesn't exist. As crash says: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. Edited by kuresu, : completed original idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The problem here is that you think the only alternative to ”assuming no-God’ is ”assuming yes-God’. But there is a lot of grey area in the middle, if you'd be bothered to look. Let's go over it:
First:
First, why would you like to wonder if the atheist can do these things? You are wondering. Your passive voice is very annoying. This also might be why you have to look up at what you wrote to follow what you were saying. Mindless, uncivilized belittling; completely unnecessary. We shall move on:
The atheist's evidence for no god is the lack of evidence for god. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack; I think that's been said many times in many ways in many places.
Would you think the mastadon existed if there was no evidence for it? Would you even think that a mastadon might exist, even if there was no indication it ever did? Of course not, nor would I think it does not exist. To say, ”x=yes-mastodon’ and ”y=no-mastodon’: I think X.I think Y. While the position claimed is difference, the claim itself does not change. ”I think’ is still a positive claim about the nature of X and Y. To make a positive claim of something, you must provide proof.
As crash says: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. But, you can never know for certain that there is no evidence, can you? Jon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack; I think that's been said many times in many ways in many places. And it's wrong when it's said. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If one expects that there should be certain evidence and the evidence is not actually observed, then that counts as evidence of absence. I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. If one expects that there should be certain evidence and the evidence is not actually observed, then that counts as evidence of absence. Even if they're just not looking hard enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Jon writes: I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not. This is really a fool's errand. As NJ pointed out you cannot prove a negative. The Romans labeled the early Christians as Atheists because they did not believe in the established Roman gods. Imagine yourself being in front of a Roman judge being asked to provide evidence that the Roman gods did not exist! What would you say? Even the often vilified Atheist Richard Dawkin's has been quoted as saying...
Dawkins writes: If there is a God, it’s going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed Notice the "if". If you really get right down to it, and put the labels aside, we are all agnostics. The Pope, Pat Robertson and the Ayatollha (sp?) are deep down really unsure but put forth a very very convincing front and have found ways to avoid being intellectually honest. They cannot know for sure because there is no way to really know. Likewise Dawkins and Harris are intellectually honest and will admit that there may be a God but the evidence does not point to a God along the lines that any theologian has every dreamt of. Theology is really just a human derived complex set of theories to avoid being intellectually honest, not a striving to know God. Believing in a supernatural being without some sort of evidence is probably a sin of some proportion and that if there is an after life those who do will probably be punished, since it is a misuse and abuse of the gift of intelligence. Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Who are we talking about? Are you thinking of anyone in particular?
All I'm saying is that once one has a hypothesis, including a description of the attributes of the theoretical entities involved in the hypothesis, and then one can predict what should be observed in the real world if the hypothesis is an accurate description of reality and the theoretical entities exist. Then one can make the necessary observations, and if the predicted evidence does not exist, then there is a problem with the hypothesis. One needs to either try to reformulate the hypothesis (and see if the predicted attributes of the theoretical entities might be different than one initially exprected), or one abandons the hypothesis. I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I just want to know what evidence such Atheists use to come to that conclusion. The fact that there's a lot less evidence of God than there should be, if he existed. If, indeed, you couldn't prove negative existence you'd never know when to go buy more milk. "God" is defined as a being who exists universally, everywhere. If even one place can be found where God isn't, then God clearly does not exist as defined. But here's the thing - when you say "God", what do you mean, exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3320 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I'll come back to you after I've looked under every rock in the universe.
Disclaimer: Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style. He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 180 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
The proof of god's non-existance is really quite trivial. For, if god exists, he is omniscient - that is, he is all- knowing. But while such a god might well know what he does know, there is no way for him to know if there are things that he does not know. His sense of his own omniscience is a delusion. Even if he in fact is omniscient and does know everything, he cannot know this for a fact because he would never be aware of anything that he doesn't know about. Since he cannot know whether he actually is omniscient, there is at least this one item of knowledge that he cannot possess and thus he cannot be omniscient. Therefore, such a god cannot exist. QED
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024