Can Someone prove to me that God doesn't exist?

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by MeCorva *
**Neurotik:

You challenge the statement about sex, arguing from a position of ignorance.

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/states/sodomy-map

should help you out. It details the 14 states that make consentual sexual acts illegal.**

I’m not ignorant, nor am I arguing from one. I am completely aware of those states that don’t allow certain acts between consensual adults. I was merely responding to jomonster’s implication that Xtians had barred people from having sex. Not barred them from having oral sex, or participating in sodomy, but from having sex period. There are no such laws. I was merely responding to hyperbole. Please read more carefully.

But, if you want to talk about why religious messages don’t belong in the schools, start a thread – you’ll get some good reasons as to why we shouldn’t let that Pizza Eating IPU into our schools, corrupting our children.

I don’t doubt it, but I didn’t bring it up. Jmonster did. Talk to him about starting up his own thread, I was merely responding.

I am not of the opinion that religious messages belong in school, I just don’t think that anyone has been converted merely by having religious messages read in school. Again, just responding to hyperbole.

**
I simply said that if an atheist should present is argument as one of a lack of evidence, not one of fact, simply because you cannot prove a negative. In the same way a Christian cannot prove the existence of God. So since neither of the two positions can be proven conclusively, then they are equal ** in that regard **. Whether someone should give more weight to skepticism or to faith, that is another argument then the one I am making.

In that regard is a pretty nebulous concept. I could say that “I can’t prove you are human”, and “I can’t prove you aren’t a telepathic anti-gravity based sea squid”, and they are equal in that regard, but, well, not really equal in likelyhood, validity, or anything like that.**

Me’Corva **
[/QUOTE]

No, what I said was not very nebulous at all. You’ll have to go back to the beginning of the thread. I was trying to clarify my position in the light of jmonster’s argument that the rules of evidence are not equal between the two sides because Xtianity is a threat to his human rights.

I have been merely pointing out that just as Xtians should not claim fact when they cannot prove it, atheists should not claim fact when they cannot prove anything except a lack of definitive evidence. So atheists should stick to the lack of evidence argument.

To be blunt, I feel silly continuing to make this argument when it is so blindingly obvious. I think that a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

[Dangerosa]

Poly -

You find Christ and the God of Christ in those things. Its not something I’ve ever been emotionally responsive to. And this from someone who, during her teen years, went through the “romantic nun” thing and took it seriously - (I actually follow and know on some level most of Tomndebbs posts on the Church) even then, as a RC going to church three or four times a week and saying the rosary every day, I never found much in Christ that spoke to me. Now, the whole cult of Mary on the other hand…

Spirituality is such a deeply personal thing (as you well know and respect). What speaks deeply to one person as Truth, may ring absolutely no bells for another individual.

[tourbot]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**
God answers all prayer. But sometimes His answer is “No” and sometimes it’s “Not yet.” And sometimes it’s “You’re old enough now; fix it yourself.”

Those of us who know and love Him hear the last a lot. And we give it our best shot.

Think about it. **

Gee, I can think up with those answers all by myself. Does that mean I’m as wise and powerful as god?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by marsupialicious *
**But who really put those clouds there? Who constructed the mountains? Who made the intricacies of nature unfold before our eyes? How far need you look to see the beauty of God? **

No offense, but are you really using the “God of the gaps” argument in the waxing years of the 21st century?

Nobody “put” those clouds there–they formed from wator vapor through the natural procecss of evaporation.

Nobody “put” those mountains there–they formed from the natural process of the collision of tectonic plates.

Any postulation of an anthropomorphic, or any other, deity who “made the intricacies of nature unfold before our eyes” is simply begging the question.

[Turbo_Dog]

I’ve just always found it interesting that so many people can believe that there is, and believe in God’s word (written by man) because no proof of non-existence exists, yet find the more plausible possibility of Sasquatch to be ludicrous due to the lack of absolute proof of existence.

[marsupialicious]

First, to pldennison;

if you believe the world and its geological phenomena were placed by years of painstaking change and such, then I will grant it, but I was simply responding to another’s quote. If it suits you then I would be interested on hearing your justification for what great event caused your own genealogy and I would be interested in what justification you have for man and the living nature to which I referred.

Secondly, to Turbo Dog;

I think that we can all agree that whether or not Sasquatch exists, we are arguing on a plain that surpasses any other tier of argument. Diety or not. Creationism vs. the alternative. What is essential to our history and our divine or medeocre futures. Forgive my illogical rhetoric for saying that I believe that the Bible is divinely inspired and written by servants of God, simply due to my faith in the Creator. However, to be just I will say this. I believe that I cannot definitively prove that Sasquatch doesn’t exist and, despite my general distaste for the unnecessary hype surrounding him, I would not argue with you on his existence if you had seen that he had left behind some trail of his existence to follow.

[Kalt]

You can’t prove a negative. It is impossible to prove that there are no 18-legged blue homosexual swan-donkey crossbreeds on Pluto. It is very simple to prove that there IS one on Pluto, though - just find it.

So, the answer to this thread’s question - based on pure logic - is no. Nobody can prove something does not exist. It is proving a negative which cannot be done.

HOWEVER, if somebody makes a claim that something unseen exists - such as the existence of 18-legged blue homosexual swan-donkey crossbreeds on Pluto or an all-powerful “god” - the burden should properly be on them to prove their positive assertion is true.

If I say there are 18-legged blue homosexual swan-donkey crossbreeds on Pluto, it is not up to you to show that they don’t exist. The honus is on me to prove my claim - just as the honus is on religionists to prove that god does exists. Until they do, atheists have the logical high ground.

[DSeid]

I am intrigued by the position that if God cannot be proven to exist then one should logically conclude that God does not exist.

Hmmm. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning? Do have faith in that? Can you prove to me that it will? If you say yes because it has before then BRAAP! That’s no proof. Every day up til now I’ve been less than 42 years old; therefore after my next birthday I will remain less than 42 years old. Induction is not proof, yet most of our beliefs are based on induction.

Of course the cause and effect (induction) argument for faith in God is equally silly, as the old story goes:
Years back two Australian aborigines were brought out of the bush for the first time and saw a waterskier cavorting around a lake. “Why is the boat going so fast?” asks one. “Because it is being chased by that madman on the string!” answers the other.
A functional universe does not prove it was caused by God. Maybe God was created by a functional universe … afterall, if God is perfect then (S)He had to have been designed … right?

Apologies to John Allen Paulos, author of “I Think, Therefore I Laugh”, whose material I have shamelessly stolen. Of course he was only referencing Hume, albeit Humeroursly.

[MEBuckner]

I am intrigued by the position that if God cannot be proven to exist then one should logically conclude that God does not exist.

If one is not given any reason to believe in a particular entity, then it is not unreasonable not to form a belief in that entity.

[Alessan]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
**

I am intrigued by the position that if God cannot be proven to exist then one should logically conclude that God does not exist.

If one is not given any reason to believe in a particular entity, then it is not unreasonable not to form a belief in that entity. **

Nobody ever said belief in God was logical. Sheesh.

As someone said, this debate is pointless. You can’t prove or disprove something you can’t fully define - THAT’s logic.

[MEBuckner]

Nobody ever said belief in God was logical. Sheesh.

However, in the O.P. of this thread, we were told that atheism is a “a self defeating principal”, and on this page of the thread we are told that atheism is “completely absurd” (although on the most unintelligible grounds I have ever seen).

Oh, yes, somehow I missed this one–the O.P. also tells us “so-called” atheists to “please feel free to refer to [ourselves] as…agnostic[s]”. How lovely.

Any “so-called” Christians who have not given away all of their worldly goods may please feel free to refer to themselves as Unitarians.

[marsupialicious]

I don’t think you understand the principle behind atheistic belief. The facts presented are sound, albeit horribly biased and ignorantly expounded. The fact is that agnosticism is the widely recognized position argued in the defense of theism. The thought of defending against and atheist seems to me to simply be a definitive 3 sentence argument. At the risk of ruffling some feathers. To be an atheist by definition is to be a contradiction, and more surreal than the God that one in such a mindset would claim deny.

The fact is it is, at most, a technicality of definition that the smug proprietor of this thread chose to announce. The end result being an argument that is as soundly based as flipping a coin. The fact is it isn’t 100% for any side until the coin lands and we find out by experiencing the consequences of our choice.

I would ask you, to spare us from further confusion, which definition suits you: the agnostic who says “God may exist, but I don’t care either way,” or the atheist who says, “No omniscient being is present in the universe. I know this as fact based upon my own personal omniscient discoveries.”

That is the purpose of the thread, but I think that it has manifested into something more. For that I applaud you all.

[jmonster]

*Originally posted by Kalt *
HOWEVER, if somebody makes a claim that something unseen exists - such as the existence of 18-legged blue homosexual swan-donkey crossbreeds on Pluto or an all-powerful “god” - the burden should properly be on them to prove their positive assertion is true.

The way you used scare quotes there made me laugh.
Neurotik:

Hyperbole; fine, whatever. It is, though, a valid rhetorical device. I trust my point was made.
Çyrin et al:

(Be sure to read my earlier post; it’s a little rambly, but so’s the Bible) Anyway, here’s the thing:

Besides the anthrocentric options, there are really only two proofs that God exists: (1) the Bible says so and (2) various people have personally experienced Him.

(1)
I think it should be obvious that any argument using the Bible as proof is pretty much textbook begging the question.

I say the Bible is half the highly corrupted and edited transcription of the oral tradition of ancient nomadic sheep herders and half the delirious rantings of cultists swept up in messianic delusions derived from the aforementioned sheep herders.

You say the Bible is the literal Word of God inspired by His Own Hand and transcribed with merely some rounding errors.

My proof: multiple independent historical sources and correlations with other Jesus-like myths.

Your proof: [singing] “the Bible tells me so.”

I win. I mean, hands down, I freaking win. Look, if you want, I can whip up a self-authenticating book that claims that I’m God. Hell, send me ten bucks and I’ll make one saying you are. Perhaps God will inspire me to write that He has decided to cease existing and, using his omnipotent power, will retroactively not have existed. Then I’ll have all the proof you need.

(2)
Now about this opening your heart and letting God in. I want you to try a little (hypothetical) experiment (don’t really do it; drugs are bad and illegal).

Go get some really good dope and smoke a lot of it. I mean, pound down that reefer, man. Then put a Lucinda Williams album on and tell me you don’t hear God. Or, don’t sleep at all tonight and at about 2pm tomorrow, close your eyes and think about a person you love. You will feel something awe-inspiring.

It’s all just your brain operating in an altered state. You’ve got all these neurotransmitters bopping around; they are literally your thoughts. All you have to do is add some chemicals that will affect some of them or make your brain deplete its store of others. Your brain drops a little too much serotonin into the mix and suddenly you’re seeing God.

There’s this crazy lady that hangs around my workplace. She thinks she’s living with one of the doctors in my department. She’s not. But she thinks she is. There’s a fine line between crazy and sane, and I think that for too long it’s been drawn a little too close to crazy, letting all the Friends of God in with us sane people. It’s okay to have an imaginary friend, guys, if you are 6.

[MEBuckner]

I don’t think you understand the principle behind atheistic belief.

I don’t understand the principle behind atheistic belief? Arrogant much?

I’ll bet that silly Pope guy doesn’t understand the principles behind Catholicism, either.

The fact is that agnosticism is the widely recognized position argued in the defense of theism.

“The fact is that night is day, black is white, and you’re going to get killed if you ever run across an English pedestrian crossing.”

On what planet is agnosticism “the defense of theism”?!?

I would ask you, to spare us from further confusion, which definition suits you: the agnostic who says “God may exist, but I don’t care either way,” or the atheist who says, “No omniscient being is present in the universe. I know this as fact based upon my own personal omniscient discoveries.”

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Do I have a four-sided triangle tattooed on my forehead? Are you a) not sure, in which case please describe a four-sided triangle to me, or b) sure that I do not have a four-sided triangle tattooed on my forehead, in which case please explain how you get your powers of clairvoyance and omniscience.

[jmonster]

Oh, while I was “researching” my last post, I refound one of the funniest pages I had ever seen:

http://www.chick.com/information/religions/islam/fallacies.asp

It’s like you’re sitting there watching as the pot expounds on the finer points of the kettle’s blackness.

[glee]

These seem like very weak arguments to me:

*Originally posted by DSeid *
I am intrigued by the position that if God cannot be proven to exist then one should logically conclude that God does not exist.

The thread title challenges atheists to prove God does not exist. It then concludes that since they can’t, God does exist.
Are you ‘intrigued’ by the position that if there is no evidence for something, we should assume it doesn’t exist?
If so, may I teach you to levitate? (for lots of money!)

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Hmmm. Do you believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning?

Yes.

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Do you have faith in that?

Faith as in ‘confidence based on scientific method’ - certainly.
Faith as in ‘I have no evidence, but I BELIEVE!’, no.

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Can you prove to me that it will?

Certainly. I can even predict the exact moment that it will happen where you live. (Perhaps you could ask God to stop the Sun rising. Would he do that for you?).
My proof is based on a number of things:

• astronomical observations and theories
• the theory of gravity
• the physics of light (including its speed through a vacuum)
• previous experiences (though personally I like a lie-in)

*Originally posted by DSeid *
If you say yes (the sun will rise) because it has before then BRAAP! That’s no proof. Every day up til now I’ve been less than 42 years old; therefore after my next birthday I will remain less than 42 years old. Induction is not proof, yet most of our beliefs are based on induction.

Oh dear. :rolleyes:
Firstly, consistent observations are at the heart of science. How often do you want something to happen the same way before you accept it? Do you think gravity exists? But according to you, there is no proof of gravity. All we can say is that it happens a lot on the surface of our planet - and that’s not good enough for you!

Secondly, I think you know when you’ll reach your 42nd birthday. Your use of the above ‘induction’ is just silly.

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Of course the cause and effect (induction) argument for faith in God is equally silly, as the old story goes:
Years back two Australian aborigines were brought out of the bush for the first time and saw a waterskier cavorting around a lake. “Why is the boat going so fast?” asks one. “Because it is being chased by that madman on the string!” answers the other.

I agree with this. I could add my story:
Years back two Australian aborigines were sitting in the desert. It was completely quiet. The first one said “This is pleasant.” The other replied “This silence could only have been created by God.”
The dark clouds came over, and thunder rolled*.
The first one said “Looks like rain”, and went for cover.
The other replied “This noise could only have been created by God.”
And then he got wet.
*thunder rolled a 6 actually (Terry Pratchett).

[Mangetout]

So, it’s decided; when we formulate a theory about something, we not only have to build it on what appears to be the most simple explanation, we also have to devlop an infinite number of alternate theories about what it might be (however improbable) and test and discard those first.

Great idea.

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by marsupialicious *
**First, to pldennison;

if you believe the world and its geological phenomena were placed by years of painstaking change and such, then I will grant it, but I was simply responding to another’s quote. If it suits you then I would be interested on hearing your justification for what great event caused your own genealogy and I would be interested in what justification you have for man and the living nature to which I referred.
**

At the risk of sounding crude, my own genealogy results from the sexual activity of many, many dozens of generations of H. sapiens and, before that, other hominid species. If you’re looking for “ultimate causes” and “prime movers,” I don’t have an answer, nor do I pretend that anything I formulate could come even remotely close to what actually happened. That’s how I differ from a theist.

I simply tire of being told that belief in invisible sky-people with super powers, based on single individual experiences potentially explainable by other means, is perfectly reasonable; but that not believing in invisible sky-people with super powers is absurd, or self-defeating, or what have you.

[Neurotik]

*Originally posted by jmonster *
**
Hyperbole; fine, whatever. It is, though, a valid rhetorical device. I trust my point was made.
**

Actually, no. I have no idea what your point was or how it related to the thread in any way, shape or form.

Of course he was only referencing Hume, albeit Humeroursly

Ugh.

[Cyrin]

*Originally posted by MEBuckner *
However, in the O.P. of this thread, we were told that atheism is a “a self defeating principal”, and on this page of the thread we are told that atheism is “completely absurd” (although on the most unintelligible grounds I have ever seen).

Well how do you fight a Dragon? I was going to use the “sword of truth and good sense” but I have tried that over and over and I still just get a bombardment of heated argument which is all over the place and not directed at any one actual argument.

SO, I’m fighting fire with fire. I’m tired of using logic and sound reasoning and being met with absurdity, so I’m using absurdity and being ignored. Funny how those who actually have something intelligent to say will respond to your crazy ideas, but If I use backasswards logic just one time, it’s dismissed as a plea for pity.