Athiesm and disproving God

[Robert.Evans]

The problem is that you're asserting something for which you have no objective evidence. If God isn't physical, if you can provide no way for anyone to objectively demonstrate that God is real, then how did you come by the evidence that convinced you? Or, as seems common, do theists just have such a low threshold of evidence that they believe things for absurdly lax reasons?

Claiming that God isn't physical isn't a solution to your problem, it's just an admission that you believe something for a bad reason.

Your argument is a non argument and I think you know that. You are the typical modern day atheist who tries to make all things physical, and if they are not, they don't exist. That is not only absurd as an argument, it closes down all discussion.
Why should a God make himself visible and physical then? Tell me that? So you can see him perhaps... haha

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No.. it means the universe has to come from somewhere, and you are saying that is luck. Won't do. It is a failure to see what is staring you in the face. Youa re just interested in the physical material world.

I am interested in what we know and how we go about finding the truth behind things we don't know.

I do not know how the universe came to be. I am not satisfied with simply saying it was "luck" or "god" or whatever else you come up with. However you do not get to assume that I am saying it was anything as I haven't. Can you understand that? The difference between assuming and admitting ignorance? I don't HAVE to assume anything.

 

[allfoak]

I am interested in what we know and how we go about finding the truth behind things we don't know.

The only thing you can know for sure is yourself.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The only thing you can know for sure is yourself.

Not even then by that line of thinking. Radical skepticism leads to unnecessary trains of thought that end with irrational conclusions at times. You have to take things with pragmatic assumptions for this whole "life" thing to work.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am interested in what we know and how we go about finding the truth behind things we don't know.

I do not know how the universe came to be. I am not satisfied with simply saying it was "luck" or "god" or whatever else you come up with. However you do not get to assume that I am saying it was anything as I haven't. Can you understand that? The difference between assuming and admitting ignorance? I don't HAVE to assume anything.

But luck or intelligence is what you are stick with, even if you don't wish to accept taht. I don't see how you hold any higher ground in doing it

 

[McBell]

Yet another great point of discussion from you ...NOT!

You have shown you are not interested in "discussion".

My question is how long will it take before you have yourself convinced enough to not have to continue trying to convince yourself you are right.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You have shown you are not interested in "discussion".

My question is how long will it take before you have yourself convinced enough to not have to continue trying to convince yourself you are right.

Yet another useless piece of information, constantly throwing back at me what i say

 

[McBell]

Yet another useless piece of information, constantly throwing back at me what i say

Your super human abilities in denial are impressive.
Not the lest bit convincing, but impressive none the less.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But luck or intelligence is what you are stick with, even if you don't wish to accept taht. I don't see how you hold any higher ground in doing it

Or option 3, or 4, or 5. Unless you are claiming some kind of incredible knowledge that no one else on the planet has come up with I don't have to limit myself to these two options. Its possible that it is the multiverse which is truly infinite with no beginning or end and with an infinite possible universes that all exist and then we wouldn't be "luck" since we would have to exist alongside every other possible universe as well.

Or perhaps this universe is the product of a collapsed previous universe or perhaps this is the only universe to exist ever and somehow it cycles itself and we just so happen to be on this particular "wave" of the universe that was bound to happen eventually.

Or it could be "luck" that it turned out this way. But it wasn't just "boom splat bam" popped into existence for no reason kind of "luck". I doubt that as well.

 

[McBell]

Or option 3, or 4, or 5. Unless you are claiming some kind of incredible knowledge that no one else on the planet has come up with I don't have to limit myself to these two options. Its possible that it is the multiverse which is truly infinite with no beginning or end and with an infinite possible universes that all exist and then we wouldn't be "luck" since we would have to exist alongside every other possible universe as well.

Or perhaps this universe is the product of a collapsed previous universe or perhaps this is the only universe to exist ever and somehow it cycles itself and we just so happen to be on this particular "wave" of the universe that was bound to happen eventually.

Or it could be "luck" that it turned out this way. But it wasn't just "boom splat bam" popped into existence for no reason kind of "luck". I doubt that as well.

I predict he denies his being wrong and defends his false dichotomy without a worry in the world about how big a fool it makes him look.

 

[Renji]

To all atheist who wish to answers this:

How come so many atheist claim God isn't real because science contradicts with holy scriptures (ie The Bible, Koran, etc)?

That's because science is based on facts, and not "I believe in it, therefore it's real" type of stuff. Above anything else, I cannot see anything as truthful and factual the way science did, compared to any religious book. Science has so far provided us accurate information on how things came to being, and a lot of other beneficial stuff, (although there are still some gaps) which any religious writing or principle wasn't able to do and disprove so far.

If you claim these scriptures are man-made, doesn't that make the argument of God existing invalid because what is in the scriptures is written by people and cannot be consider evidence of god?

Well, if I decide to think that such things are to be accepted as true, then I'd rather accept writings such as Harry Potter and Twilight a reality as well.

Do you get what I am saying? What other reasons do you atheist don't believe in god and why?

Well, is there anything substantial or undeniable so far which proves the existence of such thing?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Or option 3, or 4, or 5. Unless you are claiming some kind of incredible knowledge that no one else on the planet has come up with

It's called spiritual discernment, and many have had for a long time.

I don't have to limit myself to these two options. Its possible that it is the multiverse which is truly infinite with no beginning or end and with an infinite possible universes that all exist and then we wouldn't be "luck" since we would have to exist alongside every other possible universe as well.

I like your thinking. I believe in the multiverse the many world scenario. It is infinite and far beyond the scope of science to ever perceive. But the multiverse does not negate God. That is just materialistic thinking.
And without intelligence, it would still be luck, whichever universe we might be. There is still this problem here I think that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, that without intelligence, everything is luck. What else can it be?

Or perhaps this universe is the product of a collapsed previous universe or perhaps this is the only universe to exist ever and somehow it cycles itself and we just so happen to be on this particular "wave" of the universe that was bound to happen eventually.

Or it could be "luck" that it turned out this way. But it wasn't just "boom splat bam" popped into existence for no reason kind of "luck". I doubt that as well.

'' for no reason''. That implies ''intelligence'' in your thinking... haha. What are you saying now?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That's because science is based on facts, and not "I believe in it, therefore it's real" type of stuff. Above anything else, I cannot see anything as truthful and factual the way science did, compared to any religious book. Science has so far provided us accurate information on how things came to being, and a lot of other beneficial stuff, (although there are still some gaps) which any religious writing or principle wasn't able to do and disprove so far.



Well, if I decide to think that such things are to be accepted as true, then I'd rather accept writings such as Harry Potter and Twilight a reality as well.


Well, is there anything substantial or undeniable so far which proves the existence of such thing?

But religion knew of these things before science did. We knew that the universe had a beginning well before science. We knew that there were many worlds well before science had such a theory. And sceince is not all about facts now... it is also largely about theory and then trying to prove such a theory, which can take a long time

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It's called spiritual discernment, and many have had for a long time.

A lot of people claim it but no real evidence for it. At least nothing you can show.

I like your thinking. I believe in the multiverse the many world scenario. It is infinite and far beyond the scope of science to ever perceive. But the multiverse does not negate God. That is just materialistic thinking.
And without intelligence, it would still be luck, whichever universe we might be. There is still this problem here I think that you don't seem to be able to comprehend, that without intelligence, everything is luck. What else can it be?

If the multiverse is correct then there is no "luck" everything happens. Everything doesn't happen. There is nothing that could possibly exist that doesn't somewhere. There is no "luck". Unless you mean "luck" that we specifically are in this particular universe. That is not a statistical anomaly but simply a perception of "luck" by the participant who exists in a rare statistic. But if the statistic is needed then it is not "lucky".

'' for no reason''. That implies ''intelligence'' in your thinking... haha. What are you saying now?

That your dichotomy is false.

 

[Cephus]

Your argument is a non argument and I think you know that. You are the typical modern day atheist who tries to make all things physical, and if they are not, they don't exist. That is not only absurd as an argument, it closes down all discussion.
Why should a God make himself visible and physical then? Tell me that? So you can see him perhaps... haha

You're the one asserting that a non-physical God is even possible and when people ask you how you've come to that conclusion, what evidence have you seem, what tests have you performed, you have no answers. You believe because you want to believe, not because you have any good reason to believe. You have blind faith and when someone points out that your faith is completely blind and your emperor has no clothes, you make all kinds of excuses for why the obvious truth of the matter isn't quite so obvious.

You cannot have a rational discussion with people who just make excuses for why their claims cannot be tested or validated.

 

[Cephus]

I do. The mere fact that someone says they are atheist is a statement. It tells us that they believe there are no gods. That is fact. The fact that they do not believe in any still does not negate that it is still a believe, and as such as atheist, they are saying there is no God. if not, then why call yourself such, why argue. If you are not sure, then you are agnostic. It is intellectually dishonest to claim otherwise..... but a valid part of the atheist mindset, as they know deep down that they cannot prove their claims. Luck will not do.

Then it should be pretty easy to quote several of them from these very forums. Go ahead. Quote in context, please.

Proof is within, that is the inner witness of God. The evidence is the conviction or faith of the person. If you wish to ignore that, then that is your perogative. Evidence does not have to me ''objective'', evidence, by definition, is anything that leads one to a conclusion or judgement about something. Thus even the Bible is evidence, as is Israel etc. Ignore that evidence if you want... I have no problem with that, but don't say it is not evidence.
The problem with atheist is you look for something metaphysical in a physical realm, which be definition you will not see. Of course you won't accept that argument, because if you do you have no argument.

Then that's not proof, that's opinion. There is a difference. If that's the best you've got, then no rational person ought to take you seriously.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But religion knew of these things before science did. We knew that the universe had a beginning well before science.

True, this is why atheists explicitly preferred static/eternal models for the universe (no creation = no creator)
They mocked Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' as Big Bang, for what they complained of as the overt theistic/biblical implications of a specific creation event

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But religion knew of these things before science did. We knew that the universe had a beginning well before science. We knew that there were many worlds well before science had such a theory. And sceince is not all about facts now... it is also largely about theory and then trying to prove such a theory, which can take a long time

Science has always been about theories. It has never NOT been about theories. This hasn't changed.

And you don't "prove" a theory. You verify it. And once verified it is still a theory. Some theories that have been verified enough are awarded the title of "fact". It is still a theory but it is also a fact. Laws, which are commonly misconstrued as facts or proven theories, are never theories but simply observed universal traits of a particular system.

 

[Renji]

But religion knew of these things before science did. We knew that the universe had a beginning well before science.

Yeah? Then how about when Galileo Galilei proposed the theory of Heliocentrism? Wasn't he opposed by the catholic church because of that? How about the shape of the earth? Did any religion knew of that until proven by science? How about the Big Bang theory and the evolution of species? The spread of diseases because of bacteria? The advancements in genetic studies? Did any religion or religious people knew of that before it was scientifically discovered?

We knew that there were many worlds well before science had such a theory.

Okay so religion taught about the solar systems even before it was discovered via telescope?

And sceince is not all about facts now... it is also largely about theory and then trying to prove such a theory, which can take a long time

Okay, so how do you define a scientific theory?

 

[Revoltingest]

True, this is why atheists explicitly preferred static/eternal models for the universe (no creation = no creator)
They mocked Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' as Big Bang, for what they complained of as the overt theistic/biblical implications of a specific creation event

Is this true? How do we know? All, or a few atheists?