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

Huh. Whenever I tell that to a global warmer I get called a "denier".

 

We agree on the essentials, Ex.

I was doing what we golfers call, "busting your chops a bit." It was not meant to be nasty...just a humorous way of showing a subtle contradiction.

You seemed to be saying that asking your friend if he saw the mountain also...confirms that the mountain is there. That it is not an illusion.

My "chop busting" was to suggest that the companion may be an illusion...confirming an illusion.

Think of it as a "one hand clapping" thing.

Humor appears to be the wrong way to go with you...so I'll refrain from it...but I doubt I'll have much success. I am compulsive about injecting humor.

I do care what you think and see. But...the true nature of the REALITY of existence may be much more complicated and hidden than either of us thinks.

Everything we suppose we see...mountains and companions included...may be part of a grand illusion that IS the REALITY. We do not know.

As Albert Einstein suggested, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent illusion."

He may have been right, but as I explained to him, he may be just guessing. He's a picture of me speaking with him on this very subject:



That's just me at Madame Tussaud's with a wax Einstein. Just a bit of humor

 

Though these statements you posted maybe as honest as it gets as far as someone who doesn’t know God, but you can’t say no one knows God, or can know God. Just because you don’t know something, and the people you know and trust don’t know, doesn’t mean no one else can know the Living God.

You can say no one can prove God exists, but that doesn’t mean no one can’t know God. A relationship of communication between living things is not always in the form of a miracle or some powerful being showing His stuff. Any two living things can communicate and have no provable record or material to show other than their memory of such experience, and the result of that communication. And can only tell of what was said and then what happened as a result of that communication.

Which is never sufficient for those who don’t want to believe in the first place. Evidence is stuff that says nothing other then what theorist wants you to believe about it. only the theorist is doing the talking, not the material thing. Hence a true God knows this and looks to the believer and not evidence even though the evidence shows something made it and it had to have a will to do it, because will exists in the universe.

The will to live exists and how does something that has no life therein live and give life. Yes we know, its all a theory in the scientific view. Even the ability to decide to do something incorrect is proof or man’s ability to make agreements with the intent to keep them or break them. in other words one can make something do what it would not do without one's influence. such as throw a baseball. the ball wouldn't do that without the will of something it is not. it seems, you exclude all the things of life and living and say there is no God.

It seems in most cases the reason for disbelief is, that one isn’t in control of anything, even if he kills himself, living doesn’t stop, only the conditions and place may change.

 

I will acknowledge that I cannot KNOW that you, or anyone else, cannot KNOW a god. I usually make that clear. The theist MAY know that a god exists via some personal communication.

The question I ask of theists who assert that is, "How do you KNOW you are not deluding yourself about this personal communication?"

The most common answer is a variation on, "I just know."

When I ask a follow up question about any surprises the personal communication revealed, I have never had anyone suggest a personal communication surprise. The "god" always seems to be the "god" the person expected.

If you are alleging a personal communication of some sort...tell us about it.

Are you someone who just "knows" there is a "god?"

 

You quoted me saying:

That's not a fact. That's a fukking lie. Do not misquote me.

 

Aristotle even went as far to say that "human" doesn't exist, it's just a category. Individual humans exist.

I think a definition is of utmost importance. So did Aristotle. In his discussions on rhetoric he emphasized the importance that when debating, defining terms is essential.

When we say "gods" exist or don't exist what exactly are we talking about?

I argue that it is a human concept that is so loose in its definition that it is "practically" meaningless.

 

Einstein's really on topic here, because he implied that he was an atheist--

--and he argued forever against the uncertainty principle and even quantum mechanics for which he even got a Nobel prize for proving. So much for what he didn't believe; fortunately he later continued w/ what he did believe saying

--and that--

Oh goodness please no! As far as I can see reality often appears so ridiculous and absurd that laughter is more often than not the sane approach.

 

Which is why I suggested the alternative of:

 

Not only did he NIT imply he was an atheist...he steadfastly denied he was. He was an agnostic.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter. to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216

Not sure of your point here.

Good. And done.

 

Let's not go there as I can't follow you. I mean, I always thot that "fukking" was a good thing, at least that's what I'm told when I do it.

Huh. Somehow my post got turned around when it got included it in yours so while I'd be happy to apologize for whatever it was that I misquoted I'm thinking that I'd be more believable if I first knew just which part I was misquoting. Like, you did include the words "...the universe and source of all moral authority... ...All are the creations of man's imaginings." in your post so I'm not sure what the problem is.

 

We can understand why going on and on about what's not believable is dumb, but imho it somehow doesn't sound all that much better.being happy and quitting w/ all the stuff we don't know. I kind of have a lot of respect for the ignostics, those (like say, Buddhists) that assert the question is a dead end and we need to go over to what we do base our belief system on. Like, just what kind of idea is needed for "...a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life...”

Aw, just how while Einstein had a lot on the ball it was mostly back when he was young and before he went to seed.

But that's not nearly as important as my suspicion that you and I very well may be in complete agreement with maybe the idea that the "primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life" does in fact exist, and we must serve and pursue this importance as a kind of categorical imperative and an ultimate good. That, and how getting into particulars can be super messy.

 

Certainly the made up definition of God is one of man's imagination.

I also find it hard to believe that "God" created the Universe. Some God may have ordered the universe but I do not believe in the creation of something out of nothing (including God).

I do not think something would have to be able to create something out of nothing to be a God. If some entity had the power to manipulate and/or control matter and energy already existing in the universe though the power of its will - to me this would be a God.

 

(all emphases mine)

NO. I DID NOT!

I already told you I did not.

Instead of repeating the lie, you could have traced the links back and you would have seen that I did not say that.

Only a really ignorant or stupid person would say or imply:
the universe ... [is] the creation of man's imaginings
the ...source of all moral authority... [is] the creation of man's imaginings

But, since you were too lazy to do the research, I did it for you. Look at post #278. Referring to gods, I said, "All are the creations of man's imaginings".

I'll let you figure out where you got the part about the universe and moral authority.

 

I'm not referring to a definition of gods. I am referring to the very concept of gods.

That's a mighty big and mighty speculative "IF".

 

Yes you do! You lie! Believing is not only part of human nature. It's necessary for survival. Because you can't know all the facts in day to day life. So you make decisions based on beliefs.

So I conclude you don't want to answer a simple question. There are things worse than being wrong. And not being consequential with your own thought is one of them.

 

Well.. Einstein didn't actually win a Nobel price for quantum mechanics. He got it for discovering the photoelectric effect. Thanks to which the elevator doors stop closing when somebody crosses the threshold. He didn't even win it for his most important work: Relativity.

In fact, Einstein never believed in quantum mechanics to the day of his death. But he understood, as I tried to explain in the Global Warming thread, that it doesn't matter what a scientist believes. The only thing that matters is what they prove. And he is considered one of the most important figures in the development of Quantum Mechanics because of the number of proposal for experiments in that field that he left behind. Even though he never believed that they would ever end successfully.

 

No. You get called a denier whenever you state that there is no proof. Given that there is as much proof for Global Warming as there is for... gravitational theory, Quantum Mechanics or ... Relativity. You deny that the proof, which is right before your eyes, exists. Therefore you are justifiably labeled as a "denier"

 

Saying that it is possible for things to exist that humans are not aware of is a far cry from establishing whether or not there is a possibility that a supernatural being exists that causes changes in the natural world.

We do know however that a) many of the changes in the natural world previously attributed to a supernatural being have turned out to have a natural cause b) it is normal for humans to attribute naturally occurring events to supernatural causes when the actual cause is not apparent, especially if they are predisposed to that by their belief system c) if we can't find an actual example of something to pin down what exactly its characteristics are then it becomes more difficult to define that thing.

 

I do not do "believing"...and I have enough self-esteem so that I do not have to call others liars. Nor am I coward enough to do it on the Internet...from the safety of my home.

I make estimates; I make calculations; I make decisions; I make guesses; I even make blind guesses...which I call "estimates", "calculations", decisions" "guesses", and "blind guesses."

If you want to call them "beliefs"...you are free to do so.

I don't.

I couldn't care less what you "conclude."

I'd sooner accept a lecture on how to stay trim from Chris Christie...than a lecture from you on those topics.

 

There is the possibility that gods exist...and there is the possibility that there are no gods.

If you disagree...tell me what you disagree with...and we will discuss it.

What I said above holds. If you disagree with what I said...tell me what you disagree with...and we can discuss it.

 

It is impossible to prove the negative claim yet the inability to prove the negative claim is not proof that the positive claim is correct.

 

You are correct that the inability to prove a negative claim is not proof of the positive claim.

You are correct in saying that it is impossible to prove THE negative claim (that there are no gods)...but it is possible to prove negative claims.

Any negative claim or assertion that cannot be proved...should not be made.

 

Source citation needed for claim of stated fact, that being that the Koran and the Bible have been "proven" to be folklore, myth and fiction.

 

Spitting out meaningless words is a great way to feel superior, and soo many times on these threads we run into morons that enjoy the pastime as they refuse to define their terms. Let's you and I be different.

How about we agree that that "supernatural" means "outside our shared observable physical space time universe". If you're willing to work with me from there we can discuss the fact that even though that's kind of a generally accepted scientific definition, current scientific study often is forced to do just that.

 

I have a problem with the word "supernatural" when used as was used here also.

IF there are any gods...they are part of what is natural...part of nature...and are not "super" natural.

I may go into that more as your conversation with DRI continues.