What constitutes proof? The snowflake test.

[Thief]

Perhaps the universe was created by millions of gods. Why should there be just the one?

It is written.....ye ARE gods....
(not sure where)

 

[gnostic]

I had to re-read my post. I never said anything about how atheist are scientist and how the two relate to each other. I am an atheist by technicality (no belief in deities) and that doesn't make me a scientist of any sort. Where did you get that from?

Then why bring up (hard) atheists at all, for being the ones to have provide the "burden of proof" for physical cosmology of the Big Bang?

The Big Bang is not part of atheist's philosophy, belief or doctrine. It is scientific theory.

Any scientist, whether he (or she) be atheist, theist or agnostic, can understand and accept the Big Bang theory.

Did you know it was a Belgian catholic priest and scientist, by the name of Georges Lemaître, who first formulated the hypothesis of the "expanding universe" model, in 1927?

This was before the name for the model - the "Big Bang" - was coined; it wasn't coined till 1949, by Fred Hoyle. But Lemaître wasn't the only scientist who contributed to the theory of the expanding universe (Big Bang).

I personally brought up the big bang. I have no comments on evolution. In my personal opinion, something cannot come from nothing. Whether it can be proven true is irrelevant to me. The philosophy of how anyone (not specifically atheist) of human origin coming from the big bang puzzles me. I don't see how anyone can prove the existence of anything before the big bang.

Scientists contributed to the Big Bang theory, regardless of their religious or non-religious backgrounds.

Atheists don't need to provide the burden of proof for scientific endeavours, let alone that of the Big Bang.

That's what I have been trying to say.

And you are still making ridiculous claim of the Big Bang, because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory only provide explanation for what happened to the universe AFTER the "Big Bang" or after the initial expansion of the singularity. Meaning the Big Bang is only a theory for the evolution of the universe after the Big Bang, not before the Big Bang.

What happen before the Big Bang, no one know, but there have been a number of hypotheses as to what hypothetically the universe was like before the Big Bang.

Also false, is your claim that the universe came out of "nothing", and another ignorant claim that human's origin came out of "nothing". They are not even related subjects. The origin of the universe and the origin of man are about physical cosmology and biology, respectively. Hence two totally different subjects.

But regardless of before or after the Big Bang, how does it relate to your false or ignorant claim that atheists need to provide burden of proof for how the universe came to be.

The Big Bang model only cover 13.7 billion of years, not before it. And again it has nothing to do atheism.

You said you were technically an atheist, but do you even know what atheism mean.

Atheism only mean people who don't believe in any deity, that's all and nothing else. It has nothing to do with science or with any moral, or with any culture or with any politics (like communism) or anything else. It is just the opposite and in opposition to theism. Atheism only deal with the issue of theism and theology.

 

[gnostic]

and I believe in God because of science.

Science does not offer proof of God....it can't.
God can't be photo'd or stuffed in a petri dish.
There will be no equation.

But science relies on cause and effect.

Science will take you to that 'point' of choice.

You have to think about it.
I use cause and effect.

Blah, blah, blah...

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I was trying to find the point to what you are yelling at me about. I know atheist are not scientist. I am not a scientist. Not all atheist know about the big bang. I don't know about the big bang (don't need to yell. I can "hear" you from here). Whatever the OP said, which I have to re-read it, it had something to do with the burden of proof--again, I have to read it.

If it sound like I was making a generalization that all atheist talk about the big bang, I'm sorry. Since I don't and I don't it in technical terms, my statement is wrong.

No need to yell.

Furthermore, pulling a part the world atheist, it just means someone who lacks a belief in deities. A theist, no matter how they believe in their deities, believe in one (or more than one). There's no philosophical meaning behind the word atheist. It's just grammar.

Aka, your comment "Atheism only mean people who don't believe in any deity, that's all and nothing else."

What in my post gave you the idea I meant anything more than "I don't believe in deities"?

"Also false, is your claim that the universe came out of "nothing", and another ignorant claim that human's origin came out of "nothing""

I've never said something comes from nothing. I said nothing disappears and nothing is created from nothing. Where are you getting at?

I never said atheism had to do with anything other than disbelief in God. Do not assume what I said something I did not post. If you feel I said something in error--ASK me if that is what I meant. If I say yes/no, then you can state your argument for or against it.

Assumptions get you know where. Always ask the person for clarification if you disagree with something that "is not written specifically in their post."

--

Also, what was the topic really about anyway? Why are you challenging my comment when I did not continue with it as an debate of itself? It's just a post. Sheesh.

Let up. Atheist are human too.

Atheists don't need to provide the burden of proof for scientific endeavours, let alone that of the Big Bang.

That's what I have been trying to say

On that note, if any person poses an argument say "the big bang is true origin of life" that person has the burden of truth because he or she should provide evidences whether facts, testimony or whatever, that supports what he/she said.

The "he or she" that has the burden of proof (who brought it up first to which he/she should give evidence to support his/her points) is on him/her. The other party replies with his/her argument and with their supporting evidence.

In the case of this site, many atheist (not all, since I don't know science well enough to support any theories I may have on the big bang) argue the big bang theory and the truth of it (as well as evolution). Since they (as people) brought it up, they should have something to support their arguments.

Likewise, with believers. When a Christian (for example) says they believe God exist and that is a fact, he/she has the burden of truth to provide facts to support that claim.

It is for ANY argument posed by ANY person regardless of their belief or lack there of. I just see a pattern with many atheist. It is not ALL because I know I do not think that way, and I'm sure many atheist can careless about the origin on earth when it comes to God. Depends on the person not the belief.

 

[Thief]

Seems I do hear an atheist cry for proof now and then.....
all the while knowing science can't do that.

Science is the realm of denial for the atheist.
But they won't use cause and effect to argue the singularity.

They might have to consider ....God.....as the Cause.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Are you sure you read the whole thing?

"Snowflakes forming half an inch apart look completely differently"

Which is explained

"six sides of a half inch snowflake are exactly the same."

Which is explained.

"he more complex explanation is this:

These ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical (or patterned) because they reflect the internal order of the crystal’s water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces (known as “crystallization”) to form a six-sided snowflake.

Ultimately, it is the temperature at which a crystal forms — and to a lesser extent the humidity of the air — that determines the basic shape of the ice crystal. Thus, we see long needle-like crystals at 23 degrees F and very flat plate-like crystals at 5 degrees F.

The intricate shape of a single arm of the snowflake is determined by the atmospheric conditions experienced by entire ice crystal as it falls. A crystal might begin to grow arms in one manner, and then minutes or even seconds later, slight changes in the surrounding temperature or humidity causes the crystal to grow in another way. Although the six-sided shape is always maintained, the ice crystal (and its six arms) may branch off in new directions. Because each arm experiences the same atmospheric conditions, the arms look identical. "

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Monitoring & Understanding Our Changing Planet

Yes, I did read it. As shown in the video someone posted previously, the arms initiate at the points of the core hexagonal crystal, not the flat sides. If the crystal is so sensitive to the micro-conditions it's subjected to and makes it different from all it's nearby neighbors, measured sometimes is fractions of an inch, then why doesn't it affect the arms of a given flake differently as they grow as well.?

and I believe in God because of science.

Science does not offer proof of God....it can't.
God can't be photo'd or stuffed in a petri dish.
There will be no equation.

But science relies on cause and effect.

Science will take you to that 'point' of choice.

You have to think about it.
I use cause and effect.

The universe is run by universal, immutable natural law, as we've seen so far anyway (and without any evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been created by a supernatural force--whether "supernatural" means some more extensive set of natural laws, and/or it means something totally non-natural. But we apparently don't have to worry about that because the universe is apparently completely isolated from whatever the reality "outside" is.

Perhaps the universe was created by millions of gods. Why should there be just the one?

If God has the omnipotence and omnipresence to be such a powerful God, all other gods that might pop up would be nothing more than extensions of It. Same for angels and that's why there'd be no demons and such.

But God (if It exists) likely created the universe for the specific purpose spawning creatures with a will of their own (free will), beyond It's influence. That doesn't mean we're gods, far from it. We can't even explain gravity, much less override it. But we can demonstrate our inherent integrity and character, or lack of it, free from that influence. Of course free means there will be those who exploit that freedom with lies for their own benefit, as well as those who buy the lies rather than think for themselves.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Furthermore, pulling a part the world atheist, it just means someone who lacks a belief in deities.

Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist--Merriam Webster

Atheism is an active position taking a stance on the existence of God. What you're talking around is nihilism, materialism or existentialism. If you're one of those, then claim that. A "disbelief" in God(s) is an academic slight of hand in an attempt, as all philosophical anarchists are want to do, to undermine the language and its definitions. The same tactic is used in the promulgation of socialism.

Further, there are only two reasoned positions on the existence of God, atheism and deism. The only difference between the two, from our point of view, is hope.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist--Merriam Webster

I stick with this definition.

Atheism is an active position taking a stance on the existence of God. What you're talking around is nihilism, materialism or existentialism.

Looking the terms up...

Materialism: a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.

Completely false. I don't understand where that came from in my posts.

Nihilism: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

Completely false. Where did you get that from?

Existentialism: a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Yes, I can agree on this just going by this definition alone. We each are free to determine what we want to do (pick up a spoon to buy a house). We are responsible for our actions.

Anything other than that--philosophical wise--you have completely lost me.

If you're one of those, then claim that. A "disbelief" in God(s) is an academic slight of hand in an attempt, as all philosophical anarchists are want to do, to undermine the language and its definitions. The same tactic is used in the promulgation of socialism.

It just means disbelief in God. I put no philosophical meaning to it. I don't have a lot of views about "disbelief" because it is pointless. That is like me talking to you (if you are an atheist) about how the possibility of a unicorn can exist. We can philosophize about it. However, talking about it as if it does exist is, well, silly.

Actually, translate that whole post. I just don't believe in deities. Nothing philosophical and political about that.

Further, there are only two reasoned positions on the existence of God, atheism and deism. The only difference between the two, from our point of view, is hope.

I don't know anything about deism, though. Half the child-forums in this forum referring to monism, deism, non-theism, and so forth I don't even get into.

 

[Khatru]

Atheist: a person who believes that God does not exist--Merriam Webster

Atheism is an active position taking a stance on the existence of God. What you're talking around is nihilism, materialism or existentialism. If you're one of those, then claim that. A "disbelief" in God(s) is an academic slight of hand in an attempt, as all philosophical anarchists are want to do, to undermine the language and its definitions. The same tactic is used in the promulgation of socialism.

Further, there are only two reasoned positions on the existence of God, atheism and deism. The only difference between the two, from our point of view, is hope.

That definition was probably written by a Christian.

Atheists don't believe that gods exist; plural, you see and not singular.

 

[Khatru]

Not sure what happened there but my post was...

That definition was probably written by a Christian.

Atheists don't believe that gods exist; plural, you see and not singular.

 

[Thief]

Yes, I did read it. As shown in the video someone posted previously, the arms initiate at the points of the core hexagonal crystal, not the flat sides. If the crystal is so sensitive to the micro-conditions it's subjected to and makes it different from all it's nearby neighbors, measured sometimes is fractions of an inch, then why doesn't it affect the arms of a given flake differently as they grow as well.?



The universe is run by universal, immutable natural law, as we've seen so far anyway (and without any evidence to the contrary), but that doesn't mean that it couldn't have been created by a supernatural force--whether "supernatural" means some more extensive set of natural laws, and/or it means something totally non-natural. But we apparently don't have to worry about that because the universe is apparently completely isolated from whatever the reality "outside" is.



If God has the omnipotence and omnipresence to be such a powerful God, all other gods that might pop up would be nothing more than extensions of It. Same for angels and that's why there'd be no demons and such.

But God (if It exists) likely created the universe for the specific purpose spawning creatures with a will of their own (free will), beyond It's influence. That doesn't mean we're gods, far from it. We can't even explain gravity, much less override it. But we can demonstrate our inherent integrity and character, or lack of it, free from that influence. Of course free means there will be those who exploit that freedom with lies for their own benefit, as well as those who buy the lies rather than think for themselves.

I would say....the universe (one word) was formed that God could say...I AM!....with evidence to show for it.

And that immutable law of gravity has been muted at least once.....as Jesus and Peter took a short stroll on water.
(if you can believe the dogma)

And one third of heaven fell for objection to a direct command.
(dogma once more)

But of course ....if God be God.....then He can tweak His creation at will.
He would be free to do so.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I stick with this definition.

Looking the terms up...

Materialism: a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values.

Completely false. I don't understand where that came from in my posts.

In it's simplistic form, someone who only cares or values things of the material world.

Nihilism: The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

Completely false. Where did you get that from?

The root word, to believe in nothing including God or the value of life.

Existentialism: a philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will.

Yes, I can agree on this just going by this definition alone. We each are free to determine what we want to do (pick up a spoon to buy a house). We are responsible for our actions.

Anything other than that--philosophical wise--you have completely lost me.

Yeah, a more tenuous connection, but basically I'm just going for the cynical nature of most existentialists and express disdain for our weak powers of perception and the ultimate pointlessness of trying to discern any meaning.

It just means disbelief in God. I put no philosophical meaning to it. I don't have a lot of views about "disbelief" because it is pointless. That is like me talking to you (if you are an atheist) about how the possibility of a unicorn can exist. We can philosophize about it. However, talking about it as if it does exist is, well, silly.

But you can't say it has no philosophical meaning. You say you believe God doesn't exist, that's a philosophy. And please with the unicorn red herring. If God exists, It could look like anything It wants or nothing. To say not believing in God is the same thing as not believing in unicorns is the same thing as comparing God to the Loch Ness Monster...or a tree deep in the Amazon.

Actually, translate that whole post. I just don't believe in deities. Nothing philosophical and political about that.

No there isn't, as long as you don't claim that your belief is certain. Right now, the only two possible reasonable positions are God and no god, and since there's no viable evidence either way, it's a 50/50 proposition, and if God does exist, that would have to be by design.

I don't know anything about deism, though. Half the child-forums in this forum referring to monism, deism, non-theism, and so forth I don't even get into.

Deism is the belief that God created the natural universe and has not interfered since--I think because the purpose of the universe was to spawn us with full self-awareness which would then spark our free will. Anything else God could do in an instant, if It exists.

But of course ....if God be God.....then He can tweak His creation at will.
He would be free to do so.

Not without altering natural law and/or our free will.

 

[Thief]

Not without altering natural law and/or our free will.

Consider....miracles were performed for the weak of mind and heart.

But in occasion of solitude.....no alteration allowed.

Now, if you can't believe in miracles, that's ok with me.
I don't believe because of them.

But many people do, and for those who are willing I would point out.
Temptation to perform for proving was denied.

Step from this high place and the angels will stop your fall.........occasion denied.
Turn this stone to bread and not be hungry.....occasion denied.
Bow, and all of this shall be yours.......denied.

Yet it is written....ye ARE gods.

Seems to me the indication is clear enough.
We are here to learn whatever we can and then we stand before heaven.

To each his own and to his ability.

How to be trusted with greater things, if you cannot take care the lesser things?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In it's simplistic form, someone who only cares or values things of the material world.

I see. The closest I'd get to that spiritually is the natural world and the spiritual world coincide. Not money and new pair of shoes, things like that (unless that is part of [not is] someone's faith), but actual people, the earth, and everything living. Food and water for example is spiritual nourishment to me because it keeps me alive. I guess it's a matter of how one sees it too.

The root word, to believe in nothing including God or the value of life.

I guess that is true for me in the sense that God, to me, is not a Being. It is not the laws of nature. So, I cannot see "Him" in anyway connected to life--as a person--unless it is through the people who say He exists. I see "God" in them; alone, I don't have that conviction.

Yeah, a more tenuous connection, but basically I'm just going for the cynical nature of most existentialists and express disdain for our weak powers of perception and the ultimate pointlessness of trying to discern any meaning.

Someone who does not want to philosophize?

But you can't say it has no philosophical meaning. You say you believe God doesn't exist, that's a philosophy.

That sounds more like theology. If God is an external being as in the movies who is above all and shapes the universe, that is so far from reality that it will take a long shot for me to think about it in realistic terms. I guess I can philosophize that God consist given there is a situation or concept to which we can relate God to in order to talk about it. We can talk about how we see God through others. That doesn't mean He exist just we are philosophizing (if you will) that if He does, you can see Him through the life of His creation.

And please with the unicorn red herring.

Although severely out played and it took me a long while to actually type it, you have to admit, it makes some sense from a philosophical perspective? There is a thread I posted "creating something into reality" I believe. It said we can put our fingers on our temples and think the box siting on the table in the air, we can concentrate, have faith, and believe, but that doesn't make the box float--and if it is not there, that does not make it exist either. We could philosophize that what if a box could exist; and, if it does, we can talk about it (if not consider it's existence--agnostic) what does that do unless we are proving a part that replies on the concept of an invisible object? An atheist would say, the box doesn't exist. An agnostic, it is possible it could exist nothing is proven right or wrong. A theist, the box does exist, we just have to have faith to see it.

I sided with atheist because naturally I don't see a box and I don't (comparing it to God) feel a box existing. I don't really look for evidence for it. I like talking about God to other people from others perspectives because at least they have concrete topics to discuss about. If someone talk to me about my perspective of God, the conversation wouldn't go very far.

If God exists, It could look like anything It wants or nothing. To say not believing in God is the same thing as not believing in unicorns is the same thing as comparing God to the Loch Ness Monster...or a tree deep in the Amazon.

If He does exist, unless you mean Creator, God I see is an word not used by some religions. Those who do use that word see Him as a Creator who governs the universe. Whether or not He is active in it and a concrete person or abstract depends on the faith and the person.

I cannot say that God does not exist; that is true. I can say that God, the Being like in the movies that shaped the universe, has feelings, and can do things like that of a person to me is only a personification of what humans want and can do. God as a personification, I completely agree. God as abstract being (person), I'd have to experience that to fully know God exists. Evidence doesn't do it for me.

No there isn't, as long as you don't claim that your belief is certain.

Right now, the only two possible reasonable positions are God and no god, and since there's no viable evidence either way, it's a 50/50 proposition, and if God does exist, that would have to be by design.

To me, the evidence is in the experience rather than physical evidence. People pray to God and sometimes God intervenes and acts in their life. I can't say it's false. If someone said, God is right there siting on the bench swinging His feet, I'd have to decline His existence (unless He's Jesus who is said to be God and human).

Deism is the belief that God created the natural universe and has not interfered since--I think because the purpose of the universe was to spawn us with full self-awareness which would then spark our free will. Anything else God could do in an instant, if It exists.

I guess I'd be a deist if I believed in a deity. I'm pulled to the Santeria faith who believes the Orishas (spirits of different concrete aspects of nature) are in between humans and God the Creator. (Olofin). The way to talk to God is through our ancestors and, if trained, talking directly to the Orishas. In this view, you have a direct relationship with life (God--my signature) and interact with people and nature (not the new age way) to communicate with "Him."

In abrahamic translation, I see a more personal relationship with God by interacting spiritually and ritually through His creation.
--
Any, I understand what you're saying. Food for thought.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Consider....miracles were performed for the weak of mind and heart.

But in occasion of solitude.....no alteration allowed.

No if you can't believe in miracles, that's ok with me.
I don't believe because of them.

As humans with our full self-awareness, there aren't any simplistic minds. That's what makes us sentient, and capable of understanding good and evil. What we do with that is why we're here. It's a test to see if we can choose to do the right thing on our own, or not. If God were to short-circuit the test, both It and we would be lose another possible free soul. I can't read your mind, but because of the consistency of nature and the reason we appear to have free will, I don't believe you or anyone has experienced a violation of God's own Prime Directive not to reveal Itself to us or to allow a violation of nature's rational natural law. We need that independence and rationality to make rational moral choices. If we choose irrationality, that's our own fault.

Yet it is written....ye ARE gods.

We aren't divine in that we can't sense any spiritual immortality, but self-awareness is the image of God we were created in, if God exists.

Seems to me the indication is clear enough.
We are here to learn whatever we can and then we stand before heaven.

To each his own and to his ability.

You speak Truth there more than I think you know. If there is a God and a hereafter, we will be our own judges, set in the judgement seat bathed in the light of Truth. The choice won't be to tell the Truth, that will be undeniable even in our own inner selves. It will be to see if we can bare the Truth and the "face" of God which embodies it, or face the unbearable hellacious torment of the darkness we surrendered our souls to, separated from God, Truth and Light, leaving us with no choice but to condemn our own souls to oblivion.

If there is a God and a hereafter, we will be our own judges, set in the judgment seat bathed in the light of Truth. The choice won't be to tell the Truth, that will be undeniable even in our own inner selves. It will be to see if we can bare the Truth and the "face" of God which embodies it, or face the unbearable, hellacious torment of the darkness we surrendered our souls to, separated from God, Truth and light, leaving us with no choice but to condemn our souls to oblivion. And why would God, or those in an afterlife, want to "glorify" a Heaven or Hereafter with a Hell imagined in the thoughts of vindictive and cruel authors of such an idea? Loss would be total and complete—no pain, no joy, and no fulfillment. Only evil could derive satisfaction from the existence of Hell.

I see. The closest I'd get to that spiritually is the natural world and the spiritual world coincide. Not money and new pair of shoes, things like that (unless that is part of [not is] someone's faith), but actual people, the earth, and everything living. Food and water for example is spiritual nourishment to me because it keeps me alive. I guess it's a matter of how one sees it too.

I guess that is true for me in the sense that God, to me, is not a Being. It is not the laws of nature. So, I cannot see "Him" in anyway connected to life--as a person--unless it is through the people who say He exists. I see "God" in them; alone, I don't have that conviction.

I equate God with Truth. If we worship Truth, it will lead us to a superbeing if one exists; and if not, it will lead us to a moral thus self-satisfying life.

Although severely out played and it took me a long while to actually type it, you have to admit, it makes some sense from a philosophical perspective? There is a thread I posted "creating something into reality" I believe. It said we can put our fingers on our temples and think the box siting on the table in the air, we can concentrate, have faith, and believe, but that doesn't make the box float--and if it is not there, that does not make it exist either. We could philosophize that what if a box could exist; and, if it does, we can talk about it (if not consider it's existence--agnostic) what does that do unless we are proving a part that replies on the concept of an invisible object? An atheist would say, the box doesn't exist. An agnostic, it is possible it could exist nothing is proven right or wrong. A theist, the box does exist, we just have to have faith to see it.

In reality, the existence of "the box" is irrelevant to our lives and the moral/virtuous choices we make. If it's there, we'll know soon enough. And if it's not, we won't. All we need is the courage to ignore the doubt.

I guess I'd be a deist if I believed in a deity.

It helps deal with the doubt, and very importantly, explain that it wasn't God who "punished" you when you were good, and rewarded your evil neighbor.

In abrahamic translation, I see a more personal relationship with God by interacting spiritually and ritually through His creation.

I wouldn't call it a personal relationship, rather, communing with a possible Creator through It's creation.

Any, I understand what you're saying. Food for thought.

Good. Arriving at a virtuous/moral life through thought is why we're here.

 

[gnostic]

Long story short: Science can't prove God

But neither can religion (prove God).

All we have hearsay, from so-called prophets, messengers, messiah, scribes, and most of which weren't written by the people they claim to be, written generations or centuries later.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Religion, by its very nature, proves God. Science doesn't prove God, though.

But neither can religion (prove God).

All we have hearsay, from so-called prophets, messengers, messiah, scribes, and most of which weren't written by the people they claim to be, written generations or centuries later.

 

[gnostic]

Religion, by its very nature, proves God.

And how does religion prove god?

Faith is just "trust" that the belief is true, not that any god actually exist.

So if I was to worship Zeus or Odin, does that mean I have proven Zeus or Odin to exist?

In reality, for anything to exist, I have to be able see it, hear it, touch it, or interact it, or any of combination of above.

How do you prove an invisible god? How do you know it is not just your imagination or you're not banking on your faith on false belief?

Religion, especially creationists (and therefore ID advocates) often use the faulty Watchmaker analogy.

Like the Watchmaker who assembled all the parts to watch, so God created or designed the universe, world, nature, animals and humans. But if you are talking about Watchmaker, he is not some invisible creator, because you can meet a real watchmaker, talk to him, and if you like, you can punch him in the nose for a watch that doesn't work and he will bleed. The (real) watchmaker would be some invisible being, living in a spiritual dimension.

Nothing in the world of religion, can they ever prove his or her god to be real. There are no way to prove the existence of spirit, or that of heaven and hell.

The belief in god is no better than the belief in fairy, or unicorn, or that of goblins and ghouls.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

While I do respect your opinion, of course, here are my thoughts:

And how does religion prove god?

Religion, from a, let's say Abrahamic perspective, is "the system of beliefs and rituals devoted to worshiping a higher power or creator." The definition of religion (using a common definition rather than mine) is that it incorporates something of the supernatural (something that can't be seen with our five senses), and this unknown thing or person is the objective of another person's reverence or worship.

Religion proves God exist by its own definition. Objectively, religion itself does not prove God exists.

So if I was to worship Zeus or Odin, does that mean I have proven Zeus or Odin to exist?

Yes. If your life has been changed by this belief, you set your life on it, your world view changes, and you have devoted yourself in the acts and wishes of your deity, then yes, to you it is reality and to you, this reality is all that exist; it will be fact to you not a belief.

Objectively? I see no reason to say they do not exist. My disbelief doesn't prove they do not exist just as a religious person's belief in a Creator does not prove that it exist; they only exist or not exist to the person who believes/disbelieves it.

In reality, for anything to exist, I have to be able see it, hear it, touch it, or interact it, or any of combination of above.

In reality, we cannot know everything by our five senses. We are fooling ourselves to think reality is only within the things we can see, touch, smell, taste, and hear.

How do you prove an invisible god?

I can't prove an invisible God (I don't believe in God). If I did, the proof would be in my experience and relationship with him or her. Every person I know who believes in a deity has because of some revelation. Maybe "he" hasn't revealed himself to you? Who knows.

How do you know it is not just your imagination or you're not banking on your faith on false belief?

My honest opinion, we do not know. Hence, why we trust what we believe is true. For example, I believe that my grandmothers are talking to me even though they are deceased. Just as God talking to, I don't know, John, they and God are not here in front of me. I cannot see, smell, taste, hear, and touch them. You know they are there because of how your life changes...how you perceive yourself is different...you're "born again."

I wouldn't call it imagination. The closest I can get is the placebo affect. Though, that's an insult to most religious people in this forum.

Nothing in the world of religion, can they ever prove his or her god to be real.

Here's another thing. Do you want people to prove God the way you want to see him or do you want to accept the proof given by how the believer sees Him?

For example, I cannot make you believe and even have proof for you that my grandmothers are speaking to me. You can ask me for proof and I can give you my experiences and such. They will not mean much for you because you want proof the way you want to see it rather than accepting the proof of how I see it sense it's my belief not yours.

Objectively, everyone has to believe in a deity for us to discuss whether or not proof exists for it. We cannot analyze or even debate if both parties don't have a common foundation to start on.

There are no way to prove the existence of spirit, or that of heaven and hell.

I don't know about heaven or hell. The spirit is another word for an adjective of what we feel when we are at our healthiest full self--mind and body (combination of body and mind). When we are comfortable with ourselves and others. When we accept life on life's terms. Know our goals or callings. Comfortable with uncertainty. Know how to deal with things in a healthy manner. Acknowledge our faults and learn from them. When we get to this state even if it's one second, we are experiencing what people call spirituality. Instead of saying spirituality is a combination of body and mind being in good health, they define the combination as our spirit instead. They push it aside from the cause being psychological. Regardless of how one labels it, spirit or body/mind, it exists.

The belief in god is no better than the belief in fairy, or unicorn, or that of goblins and ghouls.

Depends on how you view God and your experiences or perspectives of how God should be to you if someone where to prove Him real.

If you're expecting a guy with gray hair, old, and siting on a thrown, you'd probably be disappointed. God is not unicorns and fairies. "He" if you like, is the sum that underlines everything that exists. I don't understand how anyone cannot feel that they are alive. If they could stop thinking about what they are and just take a deep breathe and be grateful that somehow your heart is pumping, blood is flowing, air is flowing, and the works. That is what many people define God. God is Life. Your on existence proves God exist. Whether you think this God is a being in heaven or a flower peddle, I don't know. Either doesn't sound realistic to me.

 

[Thief]

But neither can religion (prove God).

All we have hearsay, from so-called prophets, messengers, messiah, scribes, and most of which weren't written by the people they claim to be, written generations or centuries later.

It will always be a matter of choice.
Choose well....you will do well.

With so many copies of a device built for developing a mind and heart.....
and this would indicate an intent (on God's part)
choosing to fail with your chemistry seems .....odd.