I’m opening up shop. I hereby officially and formally accept all scientific proof that god does not exist, there is no supernatural force, and what we see is what we get. Any proof at all, keeping in mind that lack of proof is not proof for the negative.
This is your chance.
…
Go.
I assume you mean lack of evidence, not “lack of proof”. Can you tell us how you prove that something doesn’t exist? Start with leprechauns, and tell us how you’d go about proving they don’t exist.
“Scientific Proof” is an indicative measure of probabilities not absolutes. Just so you know.
Nitpick nitpick nitpick.
Please don’t reply unless you actually have something interesting to say.
I’ll go you one better: there’s no good evidence God exists.
“Proof” isn’t something you’re going to find on either side of the argument, but there’s no evidence in the natural world that God was necessary for any of it.
And no evidence of a supernatural world.
Please, direct your absolute ire and pithy retorts at Marley23, whose expertise as a scientist and critical thinking I am relying on.
I found his reply interesting.
I’m going to presume you don’t believe in leprechauns, but do believe in God. I’m very keen, then, to know how you know one doesn’t exist but the other does. What’s your proof of each?
I never claimed to have any.
This thread is not about proof - using Marley23’s terms here - that god does exist. It is about proof - or evidence, if you prefer - that it doesn’t.
You might not find it interesting, but you have asked an impossible question. I assume you don’t believe in leprechauns becuase there is simply no evidene that they exist. There is nothing in the physical world that requires their existence. The exact same thing can be said about God. Since there is no evidence, the logical assumption is that there is no God. The fact that you or someone else might believe in God has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God exists.
BTW, you might want to at least start off by defining what you mean by “God”.
First you have to define “God” before you can demand any sort of empirical falsification. You might as well demand proof that Blorg or Friozzle doesn’t exist. “God” is a scientifically meaningless word.
I also wonder who you’re talking to since no thoughtful atheist I’m aware of (certainly not on this board) ever claimed that there was any scientific evidence disproving theism.
It is for those who want to assert that X exists to provide the evidence, not for anyone else to refute it.
I will say that there is nothing in the observable universe which necessitates the existence of “God” (let’s assume the Abrahamic God for the convenience of debate). A superfluous God does not pass the scientific sniff test. The claim from empiricists is not that we can prove no God exists but only there is no reason to believe that it does.
You could start this same thread asking people to disprove unicorns, leprechauns, Klingons or ghosts. The question is why should theism be credited with any more default plausibility than any of those.
No, Marley23 made an impossible claim. I merely called him on it.
god is not physical. O_o
shrugs No, no it doesn’t.
Do you have any idea - ANY IDEA - how many times I’ve done that on this board? As MEB suggested to me, do a search.
First of all, Zagadka, I really don’t see where Marley23 said anything like “there is scientific proof God doesn’t exist” in the other thread.
Now, as to this (posted by you in that thread):
How are the rest of us supposed to evaluate the truth value of this claim? What possible criteria do we have for deciding between your completely subjective claim of knowledge about the divine, and the other umpteen thousand subjective claims of knowledge about the divine made by human beings? Some of those other claims–several of the more well-known and important ones, in fact–specifically claim that your knowledge of the divine is false.
“The god-force is beyond the physical world. You can’t prove it, you can only feel it.”
“The Bible is God’s inerrant word, which we know because we have faith. People who go around talking about the ‘god-force’ are probably possessed by demons.”
“No, you’re both wrong; what we call the ‘supernatural’ are manifestations of the Saucerians. Conventional monotheists and those who seek to ‘spiritualize’ the Intergalactic Psychic Sciences have it all wrong.”
What’s a poor atheist to do? Me, I’d say I’ve got no reason to believe any of them, until someone actually gives me something to go on.
I’m confused as to what we’re supposed to be doing in this thread. Not only has “god” not been defined, we’ve only been given a single property that god is supposed to have - that it is not physical.
I’m also wondering why arguments must be limited to scientific ones. Why reject out of hand the possibility of a good a priori argument against theism?
Quite frankly, I doubt the OP is debating in good faith.
And thus unable to prove - er, provide evidence - for or against with physical means, which is the point that I’m trying to make to Marley.
Hell, in the spirit of whatever, I’ll accept anything.
Given that the OP was created to disprove Marley’s point, probably not.
Ok, first, let’s stop jerking his chain, shall we gentlemen? God when used in the singular almost universally refers to an omnicient, omnipresent, all powerful creator and tacit controller of the universe.
It’s differentiated from leprecuans and unicorns, horrible examples from the great debates crowd BTW, in that God is not considered a physical animal or being that we can directly interact with, as his nature as creator and controller would make him seperate from and not constrained by the laws of space and time which we are, thereby making him scientifically non-observable and non-falsifiable as is everything else that exists outside of those boundaries, if anything.
God in the singular is unique in human history in this regard and cannot be compared to mythological creatures.
Evidence that the universe may exist without god or creator or origin of some basis remains in question. The burden of evidence is on the atheist according to some, and on the believer according to others. If one takes Hawkings new tack that the universe has always and will always exist, IIRC, then the burden is with the believer. On Hawkings old tack, it would be with the athiest, once again IIRC.
No, he said I was not willing to listen to the proof, implying that I’m somehow burying my head in the sand and ignoring something. I asked him what his proof was, you told me to make another thread, then everyone started yelling.
No skin off my teeth. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if you believed in god, leprechauns, aliens, me, or anything else. Neither did I set out to convince anybody otherwise. In fact, the last thread I created assumed that god did NOT exist and dealt with the impact of religion itself.
To some of the world, yes, which is why I titled this thread “theism” instead of “god.”
Quite correct, which is the point.
Really, people, I started this thread only for one person to reply to.
Still waiting.
Ok, I’m trying to understand here - are you saying that Marley23 is wrong because there’s no possible scientific evidence against the existence of god, due to “god” being ill-defined? :dubious:
When people ask you how God affects your life, do you reply, “He doesn’t. His only property is that he’s non-physical”?
Well, that’s true of some people’s God, but it’s certainly not true of others’. Roughly half the people on this planet worship a God that’s very different from the one you just described. Hence the importance of definitions in these things.
::sigh:: Well, if you’re aiming just for Marley then you should have pitted him in my opinion, not started an open debate. Now everybody’s going to comment 
Also, if you’re aiming for theism in general, that’s a different ball of wax entirely.