can you proove there isn't a deity?

[ladybug77]

I find your last post rather rambling and difficult to follow. I'm not sure what you think it explains.

Really? Humm...well thats okay. Thanks for reading it anyhow.

 

[Copernicus]

But energy cant just 'cease' to exist...just saying.

Nothing in my post said anything about energy ceasing to exist.

And i have a few honest questions: if Atheists dont believe in life after death...what is there to live for? That seems like an awfully lonely existence

I'm not sure how to answer that. The question would be the same even if there were life after death. What do you think there is to live for? I certainly live to fulfill my goals and desires--to get the maximum enjoyment from life that I can. Is that not a worthy goal?

And then are Atheists afraid to die?

Unlike some of my fellow atheists, I admit to being afraid to die. Perhaps I am a little more afraid of the suffering that often leads to death. That strikes me as a very natural fear to have. Intellectually, however, I know that I did not exist until I was born, and I don't expect my experiences to be different when I cease to exist. What concerns me most are the experiences I have while I'm alive.

Also...do Atheist believe that 'something' created humans. Whether we are just made from stardust, or a supreme being...thats not the question...one way or another...we were created non the less right?

I believe that intelligent beings created me--my parents. In a more abstract sense, the universe created me. One of the more interesting questions that we all have is how it came to do so. God is an unsatisfying answer because the next immediate question would be how God came to exist. It strikes me as rather absurd to jump to the conclusion that there was some always-existing super-intelligent, super-powerful being that planned and implemented the universe by some magical act of will. What we observe in nature is that simple processes interact in a way that gives rise to greater complexity. Science gives us the best chance of coming to understand how the universe created beings like us without need of any intelligent designer.

 

[YmirGF]

All the proof I need that deities do not exist is the simple fact that no one can show me the one they think exists. Need more?

 

[ResistETIntervention]

All the proof I need that deities do not exist is the simple fact that no one can show me the one they think exists. Need more?

Are you under the assumption that God is a physical being like you?

 

[Thief]

You're free to live for whatever you want.

Funny... I tend to see many typical theistic outlooks as rather bleak: if God's going to swoop down and fix every problem on Earth, what's the point of doing anything? If we live in Leibnitz's "best of all possible worlds", or if even if this universe is the expression of the will of an almighty deity, then how can you have any hope of making things better than they are?

I gather that people who believe in God have hope and purpose in their lives, but I don't see how I could get there from my perspective.

And not believing in life after death is better?
You go into the box and the box into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

God isn't going to fix the 'problem'.
God gave Man dominion. (old book)
It's up to Man to 'fix the problem'.

The 'purpose' of Man would be that opportunity to form unique spirit....
on each occasion...any one of us.

 

[metis]

Are you under the assumption that God is a physical being like you?

But if God is in no way physical, how do you know God exists? or is it Gods?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And not believing in life after death is better?
You go into the box and the box into the ground.
Eternal darkness is physically real.

I think that it's "better" in the sense that it's a better fit to the facts, IMO.

And I'm about as worried about the "darkness" after death as I am about the "darkness" before I was born.

God isn't going to fix the 'problem'.
God gave Man dominion. (old book)
It's up to Man to 'fix the problem'.

This approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense: the world is the best effort of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, but you think you can improve on it?

This is either hubris ("I can succeed where God failed!") or illogic ("God's creation is already perfect, but I'll try to fix it anyway!").

The 'purpose' of Man would be that opportunity to form unique spirit....
on each occasion...any one of us.

Does this mean something other than "our purpose is to be who we are"?

 

[Thief]

I think that it's "better" in the sense that it's a better fit to the facts, IMO.

And I'm about as worried about the "darkness" after death as I am about the "darkness" before I was born.


This approach doesn't make a whole lot of sense: the world is the best effort of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, but you think you can improve on it?

This is either hubris ("I can succeed where God failed!") or illogic ("God's creation is already perfect, but I'll try to fix it anyway!").

Does this mean something other than "our purpose is to be who we are"?

I've had a doctor tell me....'you screwed it up....you fix it!'
He was right....and I did.

as for the 'problem'....The problems of this world were made by God?
The 'proving' of a proper spirit may be held in what we say or do.

Eternal darkness as a cure for your 'problems'?
Yep....it will work.

 

[YmirGF]

Are you under the assumption that God is a physical being like you?

"I" am not entirely a physical being, in fact, the physical part of me is quite small in contrast to my larger identity. Anything else to add, Sherlock?

 

[s2a]

Go ahead, I do not like him anyway. Actually I don't have a 12 year old son so Good luck.

Heh. Not that your credibility was in question here, but it was...kinda...no longer
....

Of course I personally believe that DNA and a billion other claims are true

"Believe", or "accept"? There is a most fundamental distinction betwixt the two...

Unlike most however I admit they contain faith.

Forgive us all if your "confession" is hardly any sort of compelling testimony on it's own merits...

Have you never read Descartes'.

I'm going to be forgiving to suggest you have not read most of my posts here since 2005...

In short answer tho... yes I have

The only thing we know is that we think. It is not provable that we are not brains in a vat somewhere being fed a false reality. You can't prove reality did not appear 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I and you believe they did not but that is the point. We believe it, we can not prove it. No absolute proof of anything exists beyond the fact we think and I have even had Atheists deny that.

As I deem myself a fairly credible and informed skeptic...I hear what you claim, but...BS.

Probabilities and statistics are always a primary factor in evaluating any claims of merit, be they scientific, historic, or even philosophical (when examined with circumspect eye and tests of credulity beyond magic and wishes of faith alone).

One of the driving aspects, and most satisfying intellectual prospects of scientifically derived conclusions is the supportive presentations of testable and objectively repeatable experimental data and "proofs" that inevitably illustrate demonstrable conclusions that overcome most any obstacles to any human "reasonable doubts".

Fair to say, ONLY religion and "faith-based beliefs" can ever seek to overwhelm, deny, or ignore otherwise compelling, sound, and rational explanations as discernible facts, as defined by all available evidences.

That caveat presented of course, as a "forever" in defining the very scientific methodologies that placed a laptop computer within your crossed legs is..

..."we can't say with 100% certainty"... but hopefully 99.999% will do for now...

Absolutism is not the goal of science, nor is it even the instigation nor continuing essence of research... the "goal" is but to present the VERY BEST understanding of whatever is available today as the most rational explanation of whatever we may encounter. see, or interact upon within the cosmos as we collectively experience it today.


If we were all called upon to evaluate your own declaration that...

"No absolute proof of anything exists beyond the fact we think..."; we might individually conclude from a philosophical perspective you have share some sort of revelatory "truth" (like, "water seems wet"), but in point of fact, offers far less in substantive "proofs" that even the most simplistic scientifically derived "burdens of proof" today that we do not all reside within the atomic solar sytem of some giant's fingertip...

Fun to ponder if you are 19 and really stoned... but not very useful, and no more so that:

"It is not provable that we are not brains in a vat somewhere being fed a false reality. You can't prove reality did not appear 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. I and you believe they did not but that is the point."

No, it is the point.

Therefore...BS.

Your premise presents no "evidence" beyond pure conjecture and supposition.

Science, does not claim that luxury of unthinking and unburdened proofs. Only religious faith gets away with that crap ...

Prove anything beyond the fact we think is true:

Shifting burdens of proof will NEVER make you case, especially if you even pretend to claim that we just pooped up 10 min ago. Nope...that is your claim to substantiate and offer proof, not upon the rest of our species that have been around thousands of years to establish as literal fact...

Argue away that the Earth is flat... no really. Even if I can not "prove" to you that it is not, our planet still "Is" much more round that flat. I promise you I can offer more evidential proofs that the Earth is in fact not flat, than you can ever offer in retort that this planet IS flat.

If you care to defy nearly 100% consensus... you bear the burden of providing disproof.

And that, is how "science" really works

 

[ResistETIntervention]

"I" am not entirely a physical being, in fact, the physical part of me is quite small in contrast to my larger identity.

That is true. Our Higher Self (a.k.a. the Holy Spirit within us, Spiritual Intelligence within us, Knowledge within us,...) is greater, indeed. This is the part of us that is connected to God. That is not to say, we're gods (the plural indicates separateness) or God. It would be more accurate to say we're not truly separate from God, even in this existence in the physical reality.

 

[ResistETIntervention]

But if God is in no way physical, how do you know God exists? or is it Gods?

Our personal mind is not physical, but you know that it exists. Love is not physical (though you can express various types of love in numerous ways), but you have experienced it and know, for certain, that it exists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Our personal mind is not physical, but you know that it exists. Love is not physical (though you can express various types of love in numerous ways), but you have experienced it and know, for certain, that it exists.

You know God exists because you have experienced something you ascribe to God?

 

[metis]

Our personal mind is not physical, but you know that it exists. Love is not physical (though you can express various types of love in numerous ways), but you have experienced it and know, for certain, that it exists.

Actually our mind is to a large extent physical since our brain waves can be measured by an e.e.g. "Love" is an abstraction that actually tends to activate certain portions of our brain. Either way, brain activity is very much physical.

Now, since God supposedly isn't physical according to you, how can you be certain God exists, especially since we humans tend to have quite vivid imaginations?

Now, what I'm driving at is not to try to take away your feeling that God exists, but that I do feel such feelings need to be tempered with a good heavy dose of reality. Why do I take this position? Because I have learned over the years that I have far more respect for those who are looking for God than with those who have claimed to know with certainty God exists.

Why is that a problem, imo? Because all too often I have seen people use their religious intensity in negative ways, although I am not referring to you here, especially since I really don't know you. It seems that all too often people who claim to have found God pretty much shut their minds off on various matters because they strut around thinking they have "the answers", and then they far too often badger others who have the "wrong beliefs". To put it another way, instead of using their faith to build bridges, they instead use their faith to erect walls.

 

[YmirGF]

That is true. Our Higher Self (a.k.a. the Holy Spirit within us, Spiritual Intelligence within us, Knowledge within us,...) is greater, indeed. This is the part of us that is connected to God. That is not to say, we're gods (the plural indicates separateness) or God. It would be more accurate to say we're not truly separate from God, even in this existence in the physical reality.

I have no use for childish god concepts.

 

[McBell]

Let me rephrase...as you missed my point.

It only subjectivity...until we ALL find common ground...then it is NO LONGER subjective.

Did anyone bother to read my post explaining our common ground??

The actual thing we all have in common...requires no subjectivity. To branch, and build upon is when subjectivity comes into play.

Even if everyone agrees to the subjectivity (common ground) it is still subjective.

I.E.
the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is still circular reasoning even if everyone agrees that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Even if everyone agrees to the subjectivity (common ground) it is still subjective.

This^

Murder is an example.

 

[1robin]

Even if everyone agrees to the subjectivity (common ground) it is still subjective.

I.E.
the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is still circular reasoning even if everyone agrees that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.

The Bible is true because in every way it can be verified it is. The testimony is reliable because histories greatest experts on testimony like Greenleaf and Lyndhurst among thousands have exhaustively applied the methodology of modern law and the historical method to it and it passes EVERY test. It is divine because it contains prophecy and knowledge no man had thousands of years ago. In many ways only the past few years have show what men 4000 years ago claimed in almost every field of study. Man literally forgot or ignored the Bible to our own severe detriment, the 'rediscover" it was right all along. I have never seen a Christian ever claim the Bible is right because it says so. It is the most scrutinized and cherished book in history and surpasses every textual standard of any work of any type in ancient history and has converted a huge number of people who set out to prove it wrong. God it seems takes special delight in converting the most hostile empires and scholars to him. It has conquered time, war, death, and the best scholars could cough up against it and it will survive every manmade effort or empire that has or will exist.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

 

[McBell]

The Bible is true because in every way it can be verified it is. The testimony is reliable because histories greatest experts on testimony like Greenleaf and Lyndhurst among thousands have exhaustively applied the methodology of modern law and the historical method to it and it passes EVERY test. It is divine because it contains prophecy and knowledge no man had thousands of years ago. In many ways only the past few years have show what men 4000 years ago claimed in almost every field of study. Man literally forgot or ignored the Bible to our own severe detriment, the 'rediscover" it was right all along. I have never seen a Christian ever claim the Bible is right because it says so. It is the most scrutinized and cherished book in history and surpasses every textual standard of any work of any type in ancient history and has converted a huge number of people who set out to prove it wrong. God it seems takes special delight in converting the most hostile empires and scholars to him. It has conquered time, war, death, and the best scholars could cough up against it and it will survive every manmade effort or empire that has or will exist.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart

I am not the least bit interested in your blatant lies.
I call them blatant lies because you have been repeatedly shown how you are just flat out wrong.

 

[1robin]

I am not the least bit interested in your blatant lies.
I call them blatant lies because you have been repeatedly shown how you are just flat out wrong.

Well I was certainly justified in hoping you would actually argue the point with evidence. You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.