OK Atheists.......prove god doesn't exist

I think the problem with the discussion is that you work from your own definition of god while most of the rest of us ascribe, for purposes of discussion, the normally accepted characteristics of a god. I suspect that your definition of god is designed to meet your criteria for god's existance/ non existance while most of the god characteristics ascribed to their gods by believers are subject to objective evaluation.

 

You answer the easy questions. Not much effort at all needed to answer those (one way or another, in most cases) I know 8 year-olds who would answer them as you do. But you don't answer the ones where you actually have to think, ponder, sometimes even research.... those you just refuse to answer. So your "answers" boil down to "I do not see..", "I do not know"... "I cannot find"...

Well... have you looked? Have you even tried? If so, how did you try? What research did you do? What was the result? How did you attempt to gather evidence one way or another? How did you fail?

You expect these things to fall out of the sky for you. That is definitely not honest.

If you tried, and still can't even think one way or the other, then you didn't try hard enough. That is not something to brag about, because it doesn't speak well about your efforts.

 

There are negatives that can be proven. But not existential negatives (and I hope nobody tries to twist an affirmative statement to artificially make it appear as if it were an existential negative). And, in any case, it's not rational to expect or demand proof of a negative statement.

 

Maybe there's a God, maybe there's not. I have seen no evidence either way. Maybe this world is material and there's a God at the end, who knows. Dead people tend not to to a whole lot of chatting with the living.

If I die and there is a judgemental God I will explain myself as well as anyone. I am confident in myself and my choices so far throughout life, as much as anyone can be. If a vengeful God wants to make me push a rock up a hill for all eternity anyway so be it.

 

Glad you are entertained.

But if you are asserting "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are"...

...you ARE just guessing.

So it actually has quite a bit to do with the discussion.

 

You are correct. One can prove a negative...BUT CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE OF THIS SCOPE.

You also are correct that it is not rational to expect or demand proof of a negative statement of this sort.

BUT IT IS ALSO NOT RATIONAL TO MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE:

There are no gods...or...

...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.

So...we apparently are in agreement...RIGHT?

 

What I use is a hypothetical...a creator god...if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation.

I use the god the founding fathers used when they wrote..."endowed by their Creator...!

Not sure why you object to that.

 

I answer the very difficult questions also.

I give answers that make people like you squirm, because you realize you are treating those difficult questions the same way theists treat them.

 

JfC I've been saying this for months now!

 

Fossils.

 

A guess assumes that there is no evidence either way on which to base a decision. So it would appear to be fair to say that f you believe there

Well never hurts to repeat the truth.

 

Don't object. Now define what is creator god. The force that made the cosmos, or the force that started evolution, or the force that made man as he is out of nothing. Creator god too deliberatly vague as you well know. Of course if god is vague enough there is no answer to god or no god since the question becomes meaningless.

 

Oh everbody knows that god just made fossils to mess with puny human minds. Nasty old god!

 

Drat. I've been thwarted again.

 

It would be fair to say I made a guess there. That is what I call my guesses....GUESSES.

If you want to disguise the fact that you make guesses when you make guesses by calling them beliefs...do so. Fine with me.

I don't do that.

Mod Edit- Rule 3

Are you going to change your avatar also?

 

First...define "object"...and define "cosmos" and define "evolution" and define "force" and define "nohting" and define "vague" and define "answer."

And at some point...develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that the only way to get to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods"...IS TO BLINDLY GUESS THOSE THINGS.

Hey...don't get the idea I am mocking you, Jester. I am enjoying our conversation. I hope you are also.

 

From my end it is a conversation, from your end a monologue. And please contonue to enjoy your rather feeble attempts at mockery. Since you are infamiliar with logic it appears to be all you have left.

 

I am far from unfamiliar (the correct word) with logic. Your problem is that you want to evade the actual conversation...because you have nothing to stand on.

I can list all the salient features of what I have asserted here...and I doubt you can muster a decent argument against any of them.

But...you are bothered by the fact that I am calling your blind guessing to your attention...and that distracts you from actually engaging.

Too bad for you.

 

The Vatican will erect a monument to Galileo.
Rehabilitation of the reputation of Galileo was practiced since 1979 by Pope John Paul II. With him in 1992, the Vatican officially recognized that the Earth is not a stationary body and really revolves around the Sun.
I think soon the Vatican will put a monument to Darwin.

 

Not sure if we are or not. "There are no gods" is more rational to anybody who believes that the way to understand the world is through observation, logic, rational thought and science. "There are gods" is more rational to anybody who believes that religious dogma, spiritual "illumination" or "faith" is the way.

I'm not saying that one is "better" than the other. Or that one is right, and the other wrong. I am of the first group, of course But they're just different points of reference. However, there are only two options. To come up with a third option, the point of reference as to how to understand the world needs to be provided..

 

Well... to be honest, the Vatican never actually opposed Evolution. Given that some of the most important contributors were highly respected Catholics. Notably Jean-Baptiste Lamarck,and Augustinian Friar Gregor Mendel.

I'll be more surprised when the State of Kansas erects a monument to Darwin.

Sad that a modern U.S. State is more thick-headed than the Catholic Church when there was still an Inquisition.

 

I did not know that the majority of believers believe in the evolutionary origin of man

 

What makes me squirm is that anybody would think those answers are rational.

I would not consider "I can't say 'yes' and I can't say 'no"" or "I don't know enough to say 'yes' and I don't know enough to say 'no'", which are your actual answers, to respond to any question. Any 6 year-old could give that response about ... anything...

 

Pigheadedness against science is, fortunately, always the attribute of a minority. Albeit a very loud minority.

 

Anyone wo "believes" the way to "understand the world is through observation, logic, rational thought and science"...would acknowledge that "there is no god" is as much a blind guess as "there is a god"...and is not more logical.

What you are failing to do, Golem is to recognize that a blind guess in either direction on the question of what the true nature of the REALITY of existence...is NOTHING MORE THAN A BLIND GUESS.

Your supposition that reason, logic, and science make the guess "there are no gods" more reasonable...IS SIMPLY WRONG.

It is as WRONG as a theist asserting that it is more reasonable to assume the existence of a creator god.

Think about it carefully. You are intelligent enough to see it.