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

From the beginning, to find the reasons and remedies for the unpredictable phenomena of nature and life, humans stretched their imagination beyond the realm of available facts. Such a quest is emotional thinking, driven by greed and fear coupled with pride, which makes you fool your mind. This is how some prophets come up with off answers.

In a family, parents hold large control over the children. Since in pre-industrial time humans always faced the raw forces of nature, and often the flagrant and lawless interaction with others, the stronger of the two ganders, man, was the head of the family. Therefore, naturally, a figure of the supreme father was imagined. This is how God and associated concepts were formed. We call this set of concepts spirituality. Spirituality demands blind obedience, because logic cannot explain it. Since spirituality depends largely on imagination, its format differs from culture to culture. Over time, mystery, myth and rituals were added, by spiritual leaders greedy for fame, power and wealth, and honest but misguided ones.

Trade with other lands created towns. As communities grew in size, more law and order were established within, and their collective abilities were better able to counter the threats from outside and the wreath of nature. But we know that even the national strengths of a mighty super power, like us, is sometimes not enough to overcome the threats. For this reason the concepts involved in spirituality keep improving, as new facts are uncovered by cumulative observations and logic (i.e. scientifically), throughout the history.

Around 700 B.C, Iron was discovered. This made for higher production, enhancing the division of labor, and faster transportation and communication, by clearing land for roads faster. As a result, the kingdoms stared expanding. The ensuing wars devastated communities. This pain encouraged deep introspection. The world saw the lords of wisdom emerging. These exalted persons shaded all the crud from the definition of meaning of life, and gave us the quite correct roads to happiness. Incidentally, they defined the entity controlling our fate. Ironically, indigenous Indian religions deny the existence of God, and place ‘Karmas’ in the status of the supreme entity.

We perceive that everything has a cause, and that it becomes reason for a subsequent event. We call the understanding of this cause and effect as logic. The universe is logic. You can see this more vividly in mathematics. And so logic is the only vehicle on which, our effort to sustain our existence, and to manipulate the universe, within our sphere of influence, to achieve happiness, can ride. Majority of people in the world still proffer blind obedience to their religions. This gives them temporary respite from fear and impetus to their greed. This is an effort to shortchange your fate of due efforts. This is pride. On the other hand all sound religions preach humbleness.

Now no new religions are taking roots, not only because all cultures of the world are already deeply rooted in their respective religions, but also because we have enough wisdom available from the masters to please the sincere followers, seeking deep wisdom about life. And science is destroying myths at an accelerating pace. God, being only a tool in the quest to acquire for achieving happiness, is slowly taking a back seat.

 

When people talk about "the universe", they are generally referring to OUR universe. I was merely pointing out that some scientists believe that OUR universe is not the only one.

Even the definition of "universe" clearly refers to OUR universe...

I guess, as some kind of grammar Nazi, I also have to point out the definition of the word "quibble"...

I call your attention to the word "slight" in the above definition.


You are clearly trying to make a mountain out of an anthill.

 

You sound like Frank Apisa.

I affirm that there are no gods from the standpoint of evidence. Little of that evidence comes from science unless you want to consider History "science".

 

That's not a qualification. That's a correction of theists who say things like "Since so many atheists claim that there is 100% scientifically provable evidence that god doesn't exist".

No atheist that I know, or have read about, makes that claim. We understand the difference between "accepting overwhelming evidence" and ranting about "100% scientifically provable evidence".

There is far more evidence for intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe than there is for a real god.

The elements that make up human life are abundant throughout the universe. That is not conjecture based on the religious definition of the word "faith". That is scientific knowledge based on multiple disciplines of research.

Mankind has posited thousands of gods throughout history. To many people all, except one, have been shown to be nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. Other people accept that all are nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings.

 

Too many books have been written which provide abundant evidence of God's Providential Hand for any intelligent person to say "there is no evidence."

"The heavens proclaim the glory of God ad the firmament shows His handiwork."
Atomic structure, mathematics, beauty, intelligence, synergism, the cyclical nature of countless systems.
These brilliant creations did not manufacture themselves out of nothingness. But it is not the responsibility of any Christian or Jew to convince the unwilling of God's works. It is you who must accept what is so plainly laid out before you, with humility, with vision.
Your denial will be on your account, not anyone else's. Choose wisely.

 

Stories about stories about stories are not evidence.

If it is not the responsibility of any Christian or Jew to convince the unwilling of God's works, why do you feel the need to prosthelytize?

 

It also is illogical to assert, "There are no gods."

"Gods" include the god I mentioned...and that founders of the United States also mentioned. A creator god.

That seems to annoy you...and you appear to think it is underhanded.

Sorry about that...but it should not annoy you...and it most definitely is not underhanded.

 

You do not "affirm" or assert that there are no gods from the standpoint of evidence...BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GODS DO NOT EXIST.

NOT ONE TINY BIT.

You are guessing that gods do not exist...and that is the basic for your assertion or "affirmation" as you want ot call it now.

 

Wrong, and thanks for proving my point. The elements that make up life are not "life", particularly intelligent life. The possibility of life is not intelligent "life". You just wish there was.

 

No, I merely believe that there is no way to date that either side of this debate can state anything definitive about the existence of god(s) or lack thereof.
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't believe there is a god as described by the various holy books of humanity. I am a materialist that rejects the supernatural.
OTOH, I also know that a large portion of my belief is based on my internal comfort level, which may or may not be effected by actual fact.

Science does not inform me of the supernatural in any way shape or form but I reject the supernatural because that rejection aligns with my personal comfort level.

 

I cited books, not "stories." Try to get something straight. For a change.

It is the responsibility of every Christian and Jew to speak truthfully and honestly. We present facts, in opposition to hateful, condescending lies told by atheists. Whether or not such evidence and testimony CONVINCES YOU is not our responsibility.

Try to get something straight. For a change.

 

If empiricism is concerned with presenting an inference to the best explanation, and if naturalistic explanations and supernatural explanations cannot both be true, wouldn't evidence for naturalistic explanations be, ipso facto, evidence against supernatural explanations? I mean I could give an account of why my wireless mouse works by referencing RF (radio frequency) technology or I could make reference to telekinesis; evidence for RF technology would be the best explanation and would therefore be evidence against telekinesis (even though i can't prove to you with absolute certainty that telekinesis isn't causing it).

 

I am not asking for absolute proof. In fact, I am not even asking for proof.

I am asking for evidence.

THERE IS NONE.

Let's just work the "there is no god" assertion.

Name anything...anything at all...that is evidence that no gods exist.

There is nothing.

There IS evidence that most (perhaps every) god ever worshiped by humans on planet Earth appear to be inventions of human minds for a variety of purposed that can be "inferred."

But that is NOT evidence that no gods exist.

There IS evidence that no gods are available for inspection.

But that is NOT evidence that no gods exist.

Can you come up with any evidence that no gods exist, Adorno?

 

What about childhood cancer, tsunamis (and other natural evils), species extinction, horrendous suffering, black holes, entropy, ignorance, ugliness, etc. You have to include the good with the bad. I mean if you are making an inference to an intelligent designer don't you have to evaluate the bad? And the bad seems pretty significant. As David Hume famously said almost 250 years ago, if we look at a house and it has a couple of nice rooms, but is falling apart everywhere else, wouldn't we conclude the builder was incompetent? Your last sentence is a classic fallacy: appeal to fear. Fear doesn't make an argument true, nor does it give compelling reasons to believe something (self-preservation) - it actually seems pretty sacrilegious - to believe in God because of what's in it for you.

 

The crux of my antipathy with Pascal's Wager.

 

Yes, by virtue of my post above.
1) The extraordinary success of naturalism (experiential accounts) in giving explanatory accounts is evidence against the supernatural (this is an inference to a better explanatory worldview).
2) The example of negative evidence, presumably the existence of the supernatural would be expected to manifest in some tangible way or to confound naturalistic explanations, yet there is no reliable evidence of this, hence we have good grounds for suggesting that such a thing probably doesn't exist.
3) It seems your statement above is an example of Russell's Teapot (a version of the reductio ad absurdum critique): can you give me any evidence that there isn't a large teapot orbiting Saturn? Would I be justified in saying that claiming there is or there isn't, would be on equal footing? Or perhaps could I claim that such a thing is just a guess? No, for obvious reasons.

 

You are assuming two things you ought not to be.

One...that a god has to be "supernatural." Why can't a god be a part of nature? If it is a creator god...does it have to go out of existence?

Two...that we humans know everything that exists.

We may not. In fact, if I were to make a guess on that...I would guess there probably is more that we do not know than that we do.

If we do not know all that is to be known...we essentially are saying that there are parts of REALITY (of the natural) that we do not know.

Part of that sphere...may include gods...including the creator gods.

Even if you could give a better predicate than "the extraordinary success of naturalism (experiential accounts) in giving explanatory accounts is evidence against the supernatural" (a subtle appeal to authority, which I would love to see you validate)...that part of your argument is not even close to being evidence that gods do not exist.

Take that to a logician and see if you can withstand the laugh it would elicit, Adorno.

Anyway, I dismiss it because of your lack of evidence that there is a significant difference between what you term "the supernatural" and I suggest may be "part of the natural that we humans do not yet know."

(Unless you are going to dispute that possibility.)

IF you or Russell want to make comments about what is or is not in orbit around Saturn...fine with me. I am at a disadvantage on this to you, because I do not know what is or is not there...and you two obviously do.

If you are asking me to make a guess, though, I would use the statements of Bertrand Russell that he invented the notion in order to make a point about shifting burdens of proof...and would guess that the particular teapot mentioned by Russell is not in orbit there.

Russell, I suspect we can agree, was correct that the burden of proof for the existence of gods cannot be shifted during debate from the person making the assertion that gods exist...to someone demanding verification. Likewise, someone making an assertion that the REALITY of existence does NOT contain any gods...bear a similar burden...which cannot be shifted.

We still 5 x 5?[/QUOTE]

 

Your welcome

 

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga


“An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can’t see…..” - O.A. Battista, Power to Influence People c.1959


“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys…” -James M. Gillis

“Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power…..” – Plato

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding…..” - -Plato


“The religion of the atheist has a God-shaped blank at it’s heart…..” - H.G. Wells

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

“Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark, will sing or whistle to keep their courage….” -- Alexander Pope

“It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.” - -Mohandas Gandhi

“Atheism is a crutch for those who cannot bear the reality of God.”- Tom Stoppard

“You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” - G.K. Chesterton

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. - Vox Day

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” -Abraham Lincoln

“A creature revolting against a creator is revolting against the source of his own powers–including even his power to revolt…It is like the scent of a flower trying to destroy the flower.” - C.S. Lewis

“To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, “I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge” - -Ravi Zacharias

“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” - C.S. Lewis

“God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job.” – J.B. Phillips

“A god who let us prove his existence would be an idol.” - -Deitrich Bonhoeffer

“Shouldn’t atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from?” - G.K. Chesterton

“Without God man has no reference point to define himself. 20th century philosophy manifests the chaos of man seeking to understand himself as a creature with dignity while having no reference point for that dignity.” - R. C. Sproul

“I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”- C. S. Lewis

"As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people; and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.” - C. S. Lewis


“Those thinkers who cannot believe in any gods often assert that the love of humanity would be in itself sufficient for them; and so, perhaps, it would, if they had it.” – Chesterton, Gilbert K.

“If there is no God, everything is permitted.” - Dostoevski, Fyodor

“An atheist is a man who believes himself an accident.” - Francis Thompson

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning…” - C.S. Lewis

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. ” - Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924

La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)

You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter. Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has, no consciousness and no will.

“Mathematicians pride themselves in being useless.” – Michio Kaku

“Universes are for free. A universe is a free lunch.” – Michio Kaku, physicist

“The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensions of hyperspace. That is the mind of God.” – Michio Kaku, www.scienceworldreport.com, June 13, 2016

“As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.” – British Theorist Edward Milne in his treatise on the theory of relativity

“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million , the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” - Physicist Stephen Hawking


“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate

 

Are you sure about that? It says in Matthew 11:21-24 (NLT) =
"Judgment for the Unbelievers

20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns where he had done so many of his miracles, because they hadn’t repented of their sins and turned to God. 21 “What sorrow awaits you, Korazin and Bethsaida! For if the miracles I did in you had been done in wicked Tyre and Sidon, their people would have repented of their sins long ago, clothing themselves in burlap and throwing ashes on their heads to show their remorse. 22 I tell you, Tyre and Sidon will be better off on judgment day than you.

23 “And you people of Capernaum, will you be honored in heaven? No, you will go down to the place of the dead.[a] For if the miracles I did for you had been done in wicked Sodom, it would still be here today. 24 I tell you, even Sodom will be better off on judgment day than you.”

 

Not to mention the other things that show his handiwork like birth defects, war, pestilance and famine. All loving god my hindquarters.

 

Provide any measurable criteria for a god. You do understand that as long as the definition of god is meaningless the question of existance or non existance is also meaningless.

 

1) Okay. I assumed by god you meant something supernatural. But the same concerns still apply, since I merely have to say 1) The extraordinary success of atheistic naturalism in giving explanatory accounts is evidence against theistic naturalism. This is an inference to a better explanatory worldview.
2) No. I'm not assuming that. My position is an example of abduction (inference to the best explanation): given what we know, what are we justified in claiming?

Trust me when I say it would not elicit a laugh. This is actually chapter 1 intro logic stuff: the claim is a standard modus tollens argument.

If A then B,
~B,
Therefore ~A.

The argument is valid. The claim is not imperiled by the change from supernaturalism to deified naturalism.

But that's the point, one doesn't have to have certain knowledge right? To clarify, are you suggesting that people who claim that there is a teapot floating around Saturn are just as justified as those who don't? This is basic epistemology and it has serious implications. Do you want to be operated on by someone who has a certified degree in medicine or someone who printed of a degree from the Holiday Inn Express?

Is it really just a guess? Or are there such things as educated guesses vs ignorant ones? Are all claims guesses or do some claims rise to the level of knowledge? What is the distinction between justified and unjustified claims for you? How do you know what you know (i.e. what is your epistemic stance?)

It would seem that Russell's reasons for creating the objection would be irrelevant given your position. Since one couldn't provide evidence against the teapot's orbit, it would appear, given your claim, that neither has a greater claim to be true. This is absurd (and to Russell's point). We can go one step further, we can claim that instead of a teapot, let's make it a 3000 foot high teddy bear made out of hair secretly taken from your hairbrush. But if I take your position, then I am justified in claiming that it's just as likely to exist as not exist unless one can give me evidence that this doesn't exist. That people who claim this (or not) are merely guessing? I wonder what an epistemologist would think of that.

Russell, I suspect we can agree, was correct that the burden of proof for the existence of gods cannot be shifted during debate from the person making the assertion that gods exist...to someone demanding verification. Likewise, someone making an assertion that the REALITY of existence does NOT contain any gods...bear a similar burden...which cannot be shifted.[/QUOTE]

I'm not making that assertion. I'm claiming that naturalism without gods is more likely than naturalism with gods.

One more note, if something doesn't exist, no evidence could ever be given against its existence given your epistemic position. This is devastated by a reductio ad absurdum critique as has been suggested above by several posters: If your position is true, people who claim that any mythological creature (e.g. Santa Claus, Great Pumpkin, etc) exists have just as much legitimacy as claims that these don't exist. But of course this is absurd. Is a person who doesn't believe in Santa, just guessing? What makes it more troubling is that these beliefs have impact on actions which raises the question of what ethical obligations emerge out of epistemology. But I'll leave that for another discussion.

 

I can see the best way to deal with what may be a war of words rather than arguments is to limit the area of discussion until one item is settled and then move to the next. I hope you agree that this is a reasonable move.

I want to be sure of the basics, first.

If a person says "No gods exist"...we both take that to mean that the person making the assertion is saying that NO GODS OF ANY CONCEIVABLE SORT exist. More specifically the person is saying that NO CREATOR GOD exists.

You and I are not assuming the person making the assertion is talking only about the god of Abraham (especially as conceived of as external to nature)...or any of the other gods that have been worshiped by humans on planet Earth...with the traits they possess.

Am I correct? (If you have any qualifications on this...let's deal with it or them...so we can consider this part of the discussion settled.)

 

I would have preferred "You're welcome"...

...but I am dealing with you, so I understand.