Tell me why God doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.

[Heathen Hammer]

When was there a time that man had no indifference to whom they were worshiping?

Of what relevance is that question to what I posted?

 

[Pozessed]

Of what relevance is that question to what I posted?

Your post is about a religious god, and only indifference of religion has caused war.

Who is to say what would have happened if they just tolerated each others beliefs and accepted God as conscious energy?

 

[crocusj]

So instead of doing your own research on things you want somebody to give you all the answers?

Correct. Well, not all the answers, just yours. My time is filled with beer and stuff.I have no need to research claims made by others who assert a creator god on a forum and then expect me to do all the work. Again, how - exactly - ? Why - precisely -? And how - specifically do you know all this - ?

I haven't been reluctant to answer anything, I just am not giving people the answers that want to hear at this time

So, reluctant then. OK.

. Just because you don't want to research what I say, does not mean the answer your looking for wouldn't be in your own findings.

Oh, it's not that I don't want to. It's that if you cannot be bothered to give them then I cannot be bothered to research them.

There is a reason that I have been coming to the conclusions I have been coming to and they are of rational thought. Just because I have ideas don't mean my ideas are correct though and therefore I'd rather lead you to what I have found and ask you to make your own conclusion.'
So it's not that I haven't answered your question I just didn't give the answer you'd like

No. It's that you didn't give me an answer at all. HOW? WHY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I am not trying to give you a hard time I am just trying to get some sort of handle on it. Why don't you start with "why".

 

[Yerda]

Who is to say what would have happened if they just tolerated each others beliefs and accepted God as conscious energy?

Who is to say what would have happened if everybody admitted that they don't know and went about respecting each other for their honesty?

 

[otokage007]

Edward Leedskalnin had a 4th grade education and mastered something that is still beyond our knowledge today and he thanks God for all his work in his writings. He created the coral castle in the 40s.

The ancients have created all kinds of mystifying architectures that we cant explain, and they had a firm belief in their Gods.

There is more to belief in God than what religion can offer, we just fail to realize it.

Architecture is the responsible of that, not God.

 

[Pozessed]

Architecture is the responsible of that, not God.

No actually its intellect, without intellect we couldn't even spell architecture. I never said Gods possibility is anything other than a conscious energy. Which may be a form of intellect.

 

[Pozessed]

Correct.
No. It's that you didn't give me an answer at all. HOW? WHY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I am not trying to give you a hard time I am just trying to get some sort of handle on it. Why don't you start with "why".

because in my mind its logically more correct to believe something is created from someone than everything was created by the actions and thought of nothing.

I have researched why people claim God doesn't exist and there is no real scientific theory as to why God does not exist , only speculation and belief.
How can anyone answer to why there is no God be "there is no room for God in science", or "The big bang proves nothing", or "evolution doesn't care about the birth of life only the way things became the way they are."
Logic like this is not science but are beliefs that seem to be accepted as science...

I have gotten the answers from the internet, books, documentaries and good ol verbal communication, as well as answering peoples questions here.

 

[Sunstone]

"evolution doesn't care about the birth of life only the way things became the way they are."

Why don't you think that's the case? Do you have any actual evidence to support your belief? Or is this just one of those things that you figured out without evidence?

 

[Secret Chief]

The title of your OP declares that you are not interested in a discussion. An odd premise for a discussion forum...

 

[Pozessed]

Why don't you think that's the case? Do you have any actual evidence to support your belief? Or is this just one of those things that you figured out without evidence?

No actually that's what I was told by someone here in another post I started. I could link you to the post but Id prefer to know how/why evolution disproves a creator.

 

[Pozessed]

The title of your OP declares that you are not interested in a discussion. An odd premise for a discussion forum...

You tell me, I respond... how is that not a discussion?

 

[Secret Chief]

You tell me, I respond... how is that not a discussion?

OP:

'and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.'

A genuine discussion presupposes that the participants are theoretically open to a change of view in light of the dialogue.

 

[Pozessed]

OP:

'and I'll tell you why your'e wrong.'

A genuine discussion presupposes that the participants are theoretically open to a change of view in light of the dialogue.

Very true, in which case you can consider this a friendly debate.

 

[Sir Doom]

because in my mind its logically more correct to believe something is created from someone than everything was created by the actions and thought of nothing.

From what I understand there is no 'more' or 'less' when it comes to logic. Something is either logical or illogical. The logic of any answer is determined appropriately by the question, thus an illogical answer must deviate from the logical question in order to be illogical. For example the question, "Does god exist?" can be answered with, "Yes." or "No." or "Maybe." and each of these answers is a 100% logical answer to the question. If you answer, "Bagels." You are giving an illogical answer.

I have researched why people claim God doesn't exist and there is no real scientific theory as to why God does not exist , only speculation and belief.

Be that as it may, the same can be said for any claim that god DOES exist. Including my own claims to that affect. There is only speculation to be had on the matter.

How can anyone answer to why there is no God be "there is no room for God in science", or "The big bang proves nothing", or "evolution doesn't care about the birth of life only the way things became the way they are."
Logic like this is not science but are beliefs that seem to be accepted as science...

I think you mistake the refutation of specific claims of god's existence with claims of god's nonexistence. Science is simply dissatisfied with 'god did it!' as an answer. As a believer in gods I must say that I am similarly dissatisfied with this answer. Regardless of the universe's origins, I am extremely interested in the processes behind it. That is what science is for. When a theist offers an explanation as to why god MUST exist, it is only natural for an atheist to refute that claim with the discoveries you mention.

Just as it is easy for any theist to find something inexplicable or to exploit a philosophical principle to preserve the notion of a deity, so too can an atheist use the same methods to refute those claims. To me, it is important to know what and why people believe what they believe, regardless of the relative 'truth' of any given belief.

I have gotten the answers from the internet, books, documentaries and good ol verbal communication, as well as answering peoples questions here.

I would like to say that I can understand your desire to galvanize your own set of beliefs by testing them against those that would disagree. However, you must realize that you've set yourself an impossible challenge by stating that you will, "...tell you why you're wrong."

It's very difficult to convince someone that their opinion about god (whatever it might be) is incorrect. There are no facts involved in this question. It is highly speculative no matter which angle you come from. If this had been my topic then I might have said something like, "Tell me why god doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why I still believe." This way, I am only working to preserve my own belief as opposed to debunking the unassailable beliefs of others. Do as you will, of course.

 

[Storm]

Very true, in which case you can consider this a friendly debate.

Debate has the same premise, and there's nothing friendly about you.

 

[crocusj]

because in my mind its logically more correct to believe something is created from someone than everything was created by the actions and thought of nothing.

I have researched why people claim God doesn't exist and there is no real scientific theory as to why God does not exist , only speculation and belief.
How can anyone answer to why there is no God be "there is no room for God in science", or "The big bang proves nothing", or "evolution doesn't care about the birth of life only the way things became the way they are."
Logic like this is not science but are beliefs that seem to be accepted as science...

I have gotten the answers from the internet, books, documentaries and good ol verbal communication, as well as answering peoples questions here.

I have no interest in why a god would not exist. You claim a creator god and I am asking you why it would create. It suggests will. Please explain this willful being and it's purpose.

 

[Pozessed]

I have no interest in why a god would not exist. You claim a creator god and I am asking you why it would create. It suggests will. Please explain this willful being and it's purpose.

Oh I see, I believe God "creates" for the same reasons we do. In order to gain knowledge and to find ways to make his and our existence better.

 

[Pozessed]

From what I understand there is no 'more' or 'less' when it comes to logic. Something is either logical or illogical. The logic of any answer is determined appropriately by the question, thus an illogical answer must deviate from the logical question in order to be illogical. For example the question, "Does god exist?" can be answered with, "Yes." or "No." or "Maybe." and each of these answers is a 100% logical answer to the question. If you answer, "Bagels." You are giving an illogical answer.

My logical thinking started when I ask about the big bang, why did it happen?
ofc, the answer is IDK.

The next logical thought should be, could it have been natural or manually influenced? again IDK.

Next should be, is there signs that would prove this occurrence to be manual or natural?
I have claimed that the Fibonacci sequence seems like a good start to some form of an answer. I also claim that it seems to be more of intellect than nature. Which could add to the possibility that our universe was programmed in some fashion.

The next logical question would be to ask is if our existence was proved from natural events or manually influenced.
Which should be answered "without the evolution of the universe, earthly evolution would not exist and therefore we exist solely to the birth of the universe and the reasons that started it."

Again, denying God because we cant prove him is illogical to me and my thinking

I think you mistake the refutation of specific claims of god's existence with claims of god's nonexistence. Science is simply dissatisfied with 'god did it!' as an answer. As a believer in gods I must say that I am similarly dissatisfied with this answer. Regardless of the universe's origins, I am extremely interested in the processes behind it. That is what science is for. When a theist offers an explanation as to why god MUST exist, it is only natural for an atheist to refute that claim with the discoveries you mention.

Are you saying that atheists only claim God to not exist only because he doesn't fit into their personal logic instead of a scientific logic?

Just as it is easy for any theist to find something inexplicable or to exploit a philosophical principle to preserve the notion of a deity, so too can an atheist use the same methods to refute those claims. To me, it is important to know what and why people believe what they believe, regardless of the relative 'truth' of any given belief.

I don't disagree and that's why I have been here making posts, it is also why I titled my post the way I did. I needed other peoples beliefs more than I need my own for some things I am researching.

I would like to say that I can understand your desire to galvanize your own set of beliefs by testing them against those that would disagree. However, you must realize that you've set yourself an impossible challenge by stating that you will, "...tell you why you're wrong."

I understand, I knew it was going to be a challenge when I wrote it.

It's very difficult to convince someone that their opinion about god (whatever it might be) is incorrect. There are no facts involved in this question. It is highly speculative no matter which angle you come from. If this had been my topic then I might have said something like, "Tell me why god doesn't exist, and I'll tell you why I still believe." This way, I am only working to preserve my own belief as opposed to debunking the unassailable beliefs of others. Do as you will, of course.

Honestly I worded it the way I did hoping the people who feel strongest about their beliefs would come in to challenge mine seeing as it would grab attention pretty fast.
I cant change any ones belief unless they choose to change it themselves.

 

[Pozessed]

Debate has the same premise, and there's nothing friendly about you.

Didn't you preach about how people should treat others the way they want to be treated in order to keep a civil manner? Also didn't you claim its best to lead by example?

I'm glad you expect your community to post negative and disrespectful to each other because they don't agree with how some people use their words to start or continue a discussion or a debate.

 

[Storm]

Didn't you preach about how people should treat others the way they want to be treated in order to keep a civil manner?

No, I didn't. I quoted Jesus elsewhere to someone who claims to be a Christian, but my way has always been "you reap what you sow," and I don't pretend otherwise.

I'm glad you expect your community to post negative and disrespectful to each other because they don't agree with how some people use their words to start or continue a discussion or a debate.

See above. If you don't like the reception you've gotten, perhaps you should work on how you present yourself.