Logical and Scientific Arguments That Disprove God

[Bird123]

Oh ok. So with my limited human knowledge I came to wrong conclusions about God, but with your limited human knowledge you have the correct conclusion and view of God?

Sorry, but youre engaging in special pleading, a logical fallacy.

Isn't it wrong to assume everyone human carries the same knowledge? Isn't it also wrong to assume that all knowledge in the world is being shared??? Perhaps the only correct conclusion and view is when one bumps into God themselves. Of course you are right in that it won't guaranty a correct view. Special pleading??? I am merely placing the truth out there. What anyone does with truth should be entirely up to them. Shouldn't everyone's journey to knowledge be their own??? I think so. Even scientists leave open for all the possibilities regardless of whether they believe in them or not.

 

[jonman122]

Isn't it wrong to assume everyone human carries the same knowledge? Isn't it also wrong to assume that all knowledge in the world is being shared??? Perhaps the only correct conclusion and view is when one bumps into God themselves. Of course you are right in that it won't guaranty a correct view. Special pleading??? I am merely placing the truth out there. What anyone does with truth should be entirely up to them. Shouldn't everyone's journey to knowledge be their own??? I think so. Even scientists leave open for all the possibilities regardless of whether they believe in them or not.

no, science has concluded that the world is not 6000 years old, we were not created as we are today, the world is not flat (as was once believed, and as it says in the bible) and the earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, science has also proven that at no point in time has the earth been covered entirely in water. Science may be open to a few things, but the bible version of god is most certainly not one of them.

and if god is in any way measurable, then he is measurable to all and to give him any attributes at all such as "just" or "good" leaves open the question: how do you actually know what god is like at all, when so many other theists have absolutely different views about the exact same god? How do you know the one god you have experienced is the true god, and not the god that billy-joe experienced who didn't like shrimps but loved to tell stories of ice cream? Could billy joe prove it? no, but his god is much more believable than yours.

 

[Bird123]

no, science has concluded that the world is not 6000 years old, we were not created as we are today, the world is not flat (as was once believed, and as it says in the bible) and the earth is not the center of the universe. In fact, science has also proven that at no point in time has the earth been covered entirely in water. Science may be open to a few things, but the bible version of god is most certainly not one of them.

and if god is in any way measurable, then he is measurable to all and to give him any attributes at all such as "just" or "good" leaves open the question: how do you actually know what god is like at all, when so many other theists have absolutely different views about the exact same god? How do you know the one god you have experienced is the true god, and not the god that billy-joe experienced who didn't like shrimps but loved to tell stories of ice cream? Could billy joe prove it? no, but his god is much more believable than yours.

If you base all your knowledge of God on religion and holy books, I understand how you couldn't believe all that stuff. If God exists, logic dictates that He can be found. Just like all the physics add up, everything about God will add up. Knowledge is given to no one. Truth and knowledge surrounds us all. How long did man watch birds fly before they figured out how???? It's all a test of intelligence. Who can discover? Who wants to discover??? Simple answers as in holy books are no answers. God is much more complex, multiple views on multiple levels. Most people look at this world and see a mess. If you understood what is going on, you would see a masterpiece. Burden of proof of whether God exists as with all knowledge rests on those who wish to discover. The rest means nothing. How do I know my God is God??? Perhaps it will always be a judgment call but ways far beyond those of mankind. As always in life, our choices should always be ours. Be who you must. It's a part of the plan. If one isn't open to possibilities, can one ever discover anything???

 

[jonman122]

If you base all your knowledge of God on religion and holy books, I understand how you couldn't believe all that stuff. If God exists, logic dictates that He can be found. Just like all the physics add up, everything about God will add up. Knowledge is given to no one. Truth and knowledge surrounds us all. How long did man watch birds fly before they figured out how???? It's all a test of intelligence. Who can discover? Who wants to discover??? Simple answers as in holy books are no answers. God is much more complex, multiple views on multiple levels. Most people look at this world and see a mess. If you understood what is going on, you would see a masterpiece. Burden of proof of whether God exists as with all knowledge rests on those who wish to discover. The rest means nothing. How do I know my God is God??? Perhaps it will always be a judgment call but ways far beyond those of mankind. As always in life, our choices should always be ours. Be who you must. It's a part of the plan. If one isn't open to possibilities, can one ever discover anything???

you have the burden of proof, you think god exists, and i don't. Thats why science is so much further than religion in every possible aspect, we used to think rainbows were created by god but now we know exactly how rainbows are made. we used to think lightning was because the gods were angry, but we used science to find out the truth as to why there was lightning. There used to be supernatural explanations for almost everything, we thought they could never be proven and it would be futile to even try, but we did it. Can we prove god exists? We don't have to, because we've never seen evidence or even an small idea that he does exist. I've never seen him, no one has ever seen him, but people see rainbows every day. Double rainbows even.

 

[horntooth]

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

here, in the tittha sutta, buddha says that believing that people don't have free-will is a wrong view.

atheism doen't have a reasonable solution to the problem of existence of free-will, which would imply that if you believe that there is free-will - the rational thing to do is to believe that god exists.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/101661-theist-argument-free-will.html

 

[jonman122]

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

here, in the tittha sutta, buddha says that believing that people don't have free-will is a wrong view.

atheism doen't have a reasonable solution to the problem of existence of free-will, which would imply that if you believe that there is free-will - the rational thing to do is to believe that god exists.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/101661-theist-argument-free-will.html

that's absolutely rediculous, and in fact physics has an explanation for free will, and thats random particle movement. They don't appear to have a set course, and that implies that their movements have not been preconceived although it is still possible that they are.

it is NEVER rational to believe that a god exists, whoever told you that needs a slap in the face for stupidity. There is literally no rational explanation for god, and every time i try to get one from someone they say "well god is beyond logic, he can't be reasoned bla bla"

 

[PolyHedral]

IF you believe that there is free-will - the rational thing to do is to believe that god exists.

I have highlighted the big If in that statement. If you based your reasoning on science alone, then there isn't much reason to suppose that free will exists at all.

 

[horntooth]

that's absolutely rediculous, and in fact physics has an explanation for free will, and thats random particle movement.

if your thoughts are determined (!) by randomness, you don't have free-will, 'couse you're not free to control your thoughts.

They don't appear to have a set course

sorry, but my thoughts do.

it is NEVER rational to believe that a god exists, whoever told you that needs a slap in the face for stupidity.

yes it is, being that atheism is irrational. and it you who is need of a slap in the face for that prejudiced narrow-minded thinking, i.e. not thinking.

There is literally no rational explanation for god

yes, there is.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/101661-theist-argument-free-will.html

If you based your reasoning on science alone, then there isn't much reason to suppose that free will exists at all.

which would mean that science in conflict with common sense.

 

[jonman122]

if your thoughts are determined (!) by randomness, you don't have free-will, 'couse you're not free to control your thoughts.

sorry, but my thoughts do.

yes it is, being that atheism is irrational. and it you who is need of a slap in the face for that prejudiced narrow-minded thinking, i.e. not thinking.

yes, there is.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/101661-theist-argument-free-will.html


which would mean that science in conflict with common sense.

all you're doing is blithering. By random particle movement, i didn't mean thoughts. however somehow you got that idea in to your head, and that seems fairly random to me. In fact the argument you're coming from implies lack of free will, because all of your decisions are based off of previous experience and therefore you aren't looking at every decision you ever make logically and objectively.

You're also trying to use a thread that in fact has no basis in fact or logic or reason, so no, there is no reasonable or logical explanation for god, because there is absolutely no evidence that god exists at all. There is literally no sufficient proof.

also, there are 30 or so people in that thread that you made that have already disproved your argument. You lose.

 

[PolyHedral]

which would mean that science in conflict with common sense.

Which is important why? Common sense conflicts with science numerous times, and loses every single one of them.

 

[Thief]

that's absolutely rediculous, and in fact physics has an explanation for free will, and thats random particle movement. They don't appear to have a set course, and that implies that their movements have not been preconceived although it is still possible that they are.

it is NEVER rational to believe that a god exists, whoever told you that needs a slap in the face for stupidity. There is literally no rational explanation for god, and every time i try to get one from someone they say "well god is beyond logic, he can't be reasoned bla bla"

This lacks discipline.

You cannot disprove God.....and there are several threads here at the forum that deal with this at great length.

It is inappropriate to use the word irrational toward believers.
Faith by definition does not require proving.
It is irrational to insist on proof.

 

[jonman122]

This lacks discipline.

You cannot disprove God.....and there are several threads here at the forum that deal with this at great length.

It is inappropriate to use the word irrational toward believers.
Faith by definition does not require proving.
It is irrational to insist on proof.

it's irrational to believe something that someone poofed up out of thin air.

there is a sandwich, right now, in my fridge, that cures cancer completely. It can cure any form of cancer, on any person. Thing is, it's never been used, and no one except for me has seen it. DISPROVE MY SANDWICH. I DEMAND IT OF YOU!

 

[Tathagata]

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians

here, in the tittha sutta, buddha says that believing that people don't have free-will is a wrong view.

No he didn't. He said that people should not use the past as an excuse for their current actions.

atheism doen't have a reasonable solution to the problem of existence of free-will, which would imply that if you believe that there is free-will - the rational thing to do is to believe that god exists.

That's funny. The same Sutta that you quoted also shows Buddha explaining that belief in God is a form of determinism rather than free will.

Buddha [Tittha Sutta]: "Is it true that you hold that whatever a person experiences is all caused by a Supreme Being's act of creation? Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. A person is a thief, unchaste, a liar, a divisive speaker, a harsh speaker, an idle chatterer, greedy, malicious, a holder of wrong views because of a Supreme Being's act of creation. "When one falls back on creation by a Supreme Being as being essential, there is no desire [motivation], no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views."



.

 

[horntooth]

all you're doing is blithering. By random particle movement, i didn't mean thoughts.

well, than it is your thoughts that are random, not mine. i was talking about free-will, and you go on to talk about particle movement. silly me to assume that you were answering my post, and not just writing about something in no way connected to what i wrote.

In fact the argument you're coming from implies lack of free will, because all of your decisions are based off of previous experience

the fact that i make my decisions implies that i have free will, it's irrelevant on what they're based on.

You're also trying to use a thread that in fact has no basis in fact or logic or reason, so no, there is no reasonable or logical explanation for god, because there is absolutely no evidence that god exists at all. There is literally no sufficient proof.

yes there is. it's simple, you just look at the irrationality of atheism. as i pointed out in the thread i posted a link to.

also, there are 30 or so people in that thread that you made that have already disproved your argument. You lose.

obviously, you didn't even read what i wrote on that thread. the truth is that the people who tried to disprove my argument (emphasis on tried) have backed down, after seeing that it is bullet-proof. so it can be said that "i win".

Which is important why? Common sense conflicts with science numerous times, and loses every single one of them.

okay, if you want to believe that you are essentially not different than a rock, that you don't have control over your thoughts, and that consequently- you don't exist (as a person), that's your right. just as it's my right to, in that case, consider you an idiot, and see conversation with you as pointless as a conversation with a rock (as you consider yourself to be essentially not different than it). cheers.

That's funny. The same Sutta that you quoted also shows Buddha explaining that belief in God is a form of determinism rather than free will.

you either made a mistake, or you intentionally wrote a disinformation, i.e. you lied.
in that sutta, buddha says that it is wrong to believe that god is a cause of your actions. he did not say that belief in god (without believing that he is the cause my thoughts and actions) is a wrong view.

 

[PolyHedral]

okay, if you want to believe that you are essentially not different than a rock, that you don't have control over your thoughts, and that consequently- you don't exist (as a person), that's your right. just as it's my right to, in that case, consider you an idiot, and seeing conversation with you as pointless as a conversation with a rock (as you consider yourself to be essentially not different than it). cheers.

Define "person". Memories? I've got those. Personality? A function of memory. And I have far greater decision-making and cognitive ability than a rock, but that doesn't give anyone a free pass to ignore physics.

 

[horntooth]

Define "person". Memories? I've got those. Personality? A function of memory. And I have far greater decision-making and cognitive ability than a rock, but that doesn't give anyone a free pass to ignore physics.

so you do have free-will?

 

[PolyHedral]

I've yet to see a coherent definition. Can you provide one?

 

[horntooth]

I've yet to see a coherent definition. Can you provide one?

the ability to control your thoughts.

edit: better to say- the possibility..

 

[Thief]

it's irrational to believe something that someone poofed up out of thin air.

there is a sandwich, right now, in my fridge, that cures cancer completely. It can cure any form of cancer, on any person. Thing is, it's never been used, and no one except for me has seen it. DISPROVE MY SANDWICH. I DEMAND IT OF YOU!

If it contains chopped apricot seeds it may actually do so.

 

[jonman122]

If it contains chopped apricot seeds it may actually do so.

no, it is entirely tuna.

but thats not what i asked, i said i need evidence that my sandwich does not exist. i've pulled this sandwich out of thin air, now tell me the evidence as to why my sandwich does not exist. but don't forget, it's a magic sandwich and is not subject to logic, reason, physics, biology, chemistry, or even human intellect. it's far beyond what we could even comprehened, but still, disprove it.