psychoslice
Veteran Member
I would feel a bit silly trying to prove there is no father Xmas to a child.:icon_evil
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can not disprove God as the concept of God is unfalsifiable. I just don't see the need to disprove God as that shifts the burden of proof. I would rather just believe things where there is good evidence to support that belief. The number of unfalsifiable things that you could believe is limited only to your imagination. No one here can disprove that I existed during the big bang and watched it all happen but no one is going to believe it because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I would feel a bit silly trying to prove there is no father Xmas to a child.:icon_evil
That's okay, I'll take the moral hit for ya. God would be expecting this from me, anyway. Its how I'll know the real deal if it ever decides to show itself.
"If, when, or... geez...."
Since that is unlikely your call...That's why I specified that the miracle would be a direct manifestation of the deity.
Obviously, you do not know... so, next?It should take a bit more than that, unless I miss my guess. But who knows really? Maybe all it takes is a well-placed spear-wound.
Even I do not presume to outguess the claimed master and origin of time itself...If the cowardly wretch ever decides to show itself, I'd be happy to. Seems to be terrified of me, however.
So, now... "God" is now House Republicanism in 2014"?I'd prefer to build a bridge...
Whenever god stops quivering in its boots, I suppose.
Really?
Sooo... Explaining an invisible but benevolent "daddy" in the sky is easier ?
Really?
Exactly, that is where my words were pointing.
OK, accepted.
You are just another failed evangelist amongst many unbelievers then... but, a simple request...
...do not EVER knock upon our door at home again... ok?
I'm a a peaceful atheist, I swear. I REALLY do not care to whomever or whatever "diety" you chose to pray, chide, request, or otherwise seek/request some element(s) of restitution/validation/reward... I REALLY do not. OK?
God help you if atheists EVER get even remotely interested enough to knock upin your doors in game time on Saturdays or Sundays..
I have changed and converted resolute and evangelizing Mormons to outright skepticism in 30 min over decaf tea.
Come get some...
thank you.Oh my god i don't know what your talking about, i don't believe in god and don't belong to any church, so I wont be knocking at your door, now you can relax. :162:
thank you.
Enjoy the game(s)
There are two ways to achieve knowledge. Esoteric and Exoteric. Esoteric comes from within and can almost be considered interchangeable with "revelation". Exoteric is all knowledge that is learned from outside yourself.
Belief in god often requires an esoteric "knowledge" that god exists. This is supposed to be an innate knowledge that exists within everyone. However how can we define esoteric knowledge from exoteric knowledge? Its not as simple as one would think. A revelation in one sense exists as a conclusion brought about by previous exoteric knowlege. In this case its still an exoteric knowledge that has gone through a series of internal considerations and formulations.
Frued was a brillian man who unlocked an amazing idea. A sub-concious that exists within us all that none of us are aware about. Things that affect us in ways we can't truely know even within restrospect. It is not too far of a leap to conclude that it is possible that several esoteric revelations could actually be from exoteric sources earlier in life.
To delve deeper into psychology we must look into the development of children. In the early years children trust far more than we do as adults. They believe what they are told and reguard it as true. Anyone who tells a 5 year old something that differs from what they were told at home will know this battle all to well. (Well my daddy says....therefore your wrong) We even know now that much of what we believe to be true about ourselves was taught at an early age. At 5 years old we internalize what we think the "norm" is for nearly the rest of our lives.
So it is impossible to suppor the claim that god is purely esoteric if they were subjugated to this kind of idea growing up. Especially if it was supported by the community and more or less everyoen they came into contact with.
Next we look at reason and logic. All religions cannot be true at the same time as it conflicts. Islam and Hinduism cannot be correct at the same time. So what gives anyone any argument for proving they are "correct". There are endless debates but no one has really achieved a comprehensive argument why Christianity is more true than other major religions.
So then we arrive at another conclusion. Either a) God doesn't exist and religion is false or b) we have to change what we define as "god" and conclude that all different religions are simply different interpretations of said god.
Then we need to look at things historically and scientifically. Much of what has been claimed in religion is simply false when illuminated by science. Suddenly its a medaphor refrences pop up and we move on. But when we look at history we know that humans haven't always lived on this planet. What sets people aside from animals? Do we have to change the scope of what religion and god means for us as a species? In some cases it doesn't matter but in several it does.
Look at the early forms of religion. Are they simplistic and evolving later into something more complex? Yes. Is it commonly accepted that many ancient religions are nothing more than folktales and mythology? Yes. Why exactly then do we assume that any of the modern incarnations of the same mental illusion is somehow different?
No need to be bashful speak your mind. If there is some questions or comments on it please don't hold back I don't get offended.I do not wish to seem rude or indifferent to your
thoughtful missive... personal effort and meaningful inquiries were presented for opportunities of introspection and reflection alike... but...
Then you don't believe? The whole point of the above post was to bring into question the basis of "faith". Is it something you are blessed with or something instilled within you as a child? Are there certain mechanisms that cause a predisposition to being an atheist vs a theist? I don't know.If one is NOT "blessed" with the "gift of Faith" (or an otherwise requisite of suspension of disbelief), then what?
Superstitious beliefs are in the same vein. I don't have all the answers but if I were to guess I would guess that superstitious beliefs and theological beliefs stem from teh same place. If someone made a cause/effect explination based off of personal observations (as much superstition and theological concepts most likely were) then it would be misinformation and jumping to conclusions.Either superstitious beliefs of supernatural cause/effect explanations for the cosmos seem real, or seem maybe kinda sorta caveman-like... fearing storms, snakes, bears, and the occasional moon/sun eclipses.
I do not believe the moon will eat me alive... so is that a lack of "faith', or something else?
I honestly don't see what this is necessary. Is there some reason why we should consider doing this?Perhaps now is the opportunity for believers (adherents of deistic religious beliefs) to cite any evidentiary examples (as undeniable and incontrovertible) they can offer that would, in effect, "disprove" the "existence" of their professed deity - and would result in their "un-conversion" to "unbelief" (or non-acceptance of claims) of any/all supernatural god(s).
If you can provide evidence that nobody has a "soul", that would be significant. If you could for example prove that my consciousness is "unique" ONLY due to the specific combination of biology and experiences that make up my "self", then you will have convinced me that there is no god. If you can conclusively prove that we are all merely the sum of are parts - nothing more, and that any genetically identical person would have exactly the same "consciousness", have exactly the same personality and make exactly the same choices as their genetic twin if they had lived life in their shoes, you will have convinced me that there is no god.But is there any "evidence" (beyond that which is already available) that would persuade you as a "believer" that all claims of supernatural deities are bunk? If so, please offer such prospective "disproofs".
No. Why would it?Would discovery of alien life forms (not of this Earth) do the trick?
Unlikely. In fact, in my opinion the opposite is true. I would have said that if you could convince me that the universe wasn't finely tuned for to make life possible, that might convince me that there was no god. Unfortunately, the confirmed existence of dark energy as the dominant component of the universe essentially rules out that argument. I also might have suggested that evidence that the universe did not have a transcendent, singularity beginning might also be somewhat convincing that there is no god. But since the Big Bang Theory is generally considered to be the principle theory of universal origins, I'd have to say that this is a dead end as well.Is there some element of cosmology; mathematics; elemental, particle, or theoretical physics; chemistry (akin to "proof" that "life" can spark or originate from otherwise inorganic compounds); or biology (or evolution), or some other "find" or "discovery" (either scientific or even philosophical) that would, in fact, lend you to conclude that all claims to deities are unfounded/unmerited, or certifiably "disproved"?
I'll play along, for now. See above!Believers have asked me many times over the years, "What would it take (for) you to believe?". Well, in the thread referenced above, my earnest answer is tendered in reply. Now, the converse question is put to believers for similar consideration and honest reply.
What say you?
"If, when, or... geez...."
Since that is unlikely your call...
Obviously, you do not know... so, next?
Even I do not presume to outguess the claimed master and origin of time itself...
So, now... "God" is now House Republicanism in 2014"?
Really?
It doesn't, Doom. It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken. The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century. Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him. That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.How does this disprove God to you?
It doesn't, Doom. It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken. The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century. Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him. That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.
What say you?
Hi, FranklinWhy do we assume that the ancients knew more than us...is it at all possible...that...they didn't....
It doesn't, Doom.
It is simply a story, about a man trying to "prove" things that are beyond his ken.
The concept of God, of course, is, as Sherlock Holmes might say, "elementary" -- it has been with us for millenia, long before British Atheism came into being in the 19th Century.
Supposing one can "prove" God's existence, presumes that we can somehow get "outside" of God to observe him.
That is a very proud presumption, incompatible with what even the ancients knew of the divine nature.