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

I have given a very meaningful and reasonable definition (explanation of what I mean) of a god.

Use it.

Or, since it pokes a hole in your arguments...continue to pretend I have not.

 

I didn't say or imply they were. What's your point?

Incoherent, but what's your point?

Obviously not.

Now, how about actually addressing...

• 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.

...or even just one of them.

 

Since you have been completely proven wrong just keep pretending you are right.

Even though you know you are not and that is proven

 

I can definitively state that the very concept of gods has its basis on Man trying to answer the (then) unanswerable questions. Gods are the creation of man's imaginings.

No one very few people, today, believe praying to Eros will bring love because they know that there is no such entity as Eros.

I could make the same comment about the hundreds and hundreds of other "gods" that man has created.

Yet, for some reason, people believe that (at least one of) the gods of today are "real". Some push it out further; somehow, somewhere out there they must be a real god. WHY?

WHY? Why does the idea of a god bring you comfort?

Science does inform you of the supernatural: Science rejects it. If not, science would have to contemplate the implications of the universe having been created Last Thursday.

 

I must have missed your very meaningful definition. All I remember is the Creator God nonsense which could mean almost anything. Oh and perhaps some vague ramblings about supernatural. Like I said as long as your definition of a god continues to be so deliberatly unmeasurable your guesses will continue to be valid but meaningless.

 

This is stupid. I'll prove to you there is no god when you prove to me there is no Sasquash.

 

Go back to sleep and let the adults have a discussion.

Be satisfied with your blind guesses that there are no gods...and continue to do what theists often do...deny anything that shows your blind guesses to be nothing more than blind guesses.

 

You said "books" but, in your post #955, the only thing you "cited" was a passage from Psalm 19:1 from the Bible.
(my emphasis)

​

Apparently you don't know that the Bible is a collection of stories. Apparently you don't understand that quoting a passage from the Bible is not presenting "evidence".


BTW I wonder where you copied that passage from. I could find no translation that used the words "heavens proclaim" and "His handiwork".

So, you think quoting a passage from the Bible is presenting facts. Well, it isn't. All it is is proselytizing. Very lazy proselytizing.

Maybe, to further the veracity of your argument, you could point out some of the "hateful, condescending lies" I have told.

 

Having a bit of a problem responding to my actual post are we?

 

No the argument is NOT valid.
B can have numerous causative factors, not just A.

That's not right. It's not even wrong. - Max Planck

God would make a universe without elegance, and beauty, and strict rules governing, oh, the energy we receive with such constancy from the sun? The cyclical nature of countless processes would not be part of God's Hand?
Perhaps on one of the countless other "Multiverses" of your fantastic imagination, but not of the REAL universe.

 

God would make a world without birth defects, wars, famine and pestilance if it were actually a god with the normally ascribed Christian God attributes.

The Attributes of God
City University of New York › qcc › Attr...
In Western (Christian) thought, God is traditionally described as a being that possesses at least three necessary properties: omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), and omnibenevolence (supremely good). In other words, God knows everything, has the power to do anything, and is perfectly good.

 

I am well aware that our concepts of god all of its surrounding dogma come from the minds of men.
There isn't necessarily one reason why people have faith. It enables them to resolve the unresolvable, including dealing with the knowledge of our own mortality. There is comfort in believing that there is some benevolent (ya right) entity watching over them and that "protects" them if they behave properly (according to what other men have determined to be appropriate).

those of us without faith, cannot fully understand the emotional and intellectual relief that such faith can provide.

It doesn't bring me comfort, because I don't believe in anthropomorphic gods.

No, science does not reject the supernatural. True scientists will tell you that they have found no evidence of supernatural forces or planes of existence as yet. But I remind you that the scientific revolution did not really gain traction until we invented ways of extend our perceptions and senses beyond our natural abilities.

In 1880, Had I proclaimed that all life was based on a double helix chemical structure contained within every cell, it would have to be taken on faith and faith alone as there could be no way of directly determining the truth of the statement.

OTOH, I am firmly in the camp that unless and until proven otherwise the supernatural is nothing more than imagination. Some people feel different. My wife for instance believes in the Long Island Medium

 

Not at all.

I am having trouble getting through whatever it is you have used to seal your mind shut.

Thanks for asking.

 

What changes is not real; what is real does not change. To speak of "arising" is to speak of change. To speak of "context" is to speak of something apart from and distinct from the Eternal, which is All that Is. The Eternal State with without form and without beingness. This is your original state.
Your original, true state of being is present now.

"Seeing" implies separation... -that which is seen and that which sees. This is illusion. Be nothing. Know nothing. Have nothing. Therein you will find your Reality. Your Reality, -your original, true state of being, is present now. Know it as it is.

 

Meat Loaf said

Now don't be sad
'Cause two out of three ain't bad​

I guess it depends on which two. It seems the Christian God has omniscience and omnipotence. But He is definitely missing omnibenevolence

Since his omniscience didn't do him much good (as we can see from the apple incident), He would have been better off with just omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

I guess HIS creator screwed up. Or maybe HIS creator just wanted to see how the wrong two out of three would work.




Damn, even this forum's spell checker is OK with omniscience and omnipotence, but it doesn't like omnibenevolence.

 

I don't think you will find too many scientists trying to determine if everything was created LastThursday. They cannot rule it out scientifically.

Telescopes and microscopes were devised, tested and found to work. On the other hand things like these have been proved to have no scientific value.

It would not have been accepted - period.

Unfortunately our Government has similar beliefs.
http://www.livescience.com/57556-cia-releases-declassified-stargate-files.html

 

we violently agree.

Yes quackery in the absence of actual science has been with us since day one.

Correct because it required a "world" beyond our individual imagining. That kinda/sorta defines the term "supernatural"

Let's face it. The supernatural is inculcated in all human cultures. Ghosts and fairies, gods and angels, unicorns and dragons, monsters and demons, and on and on and on. Its been with us since our earliest hunter/gatherer days.

The application of Science is in its relative infancy when measured against that. its understandable that it would become an area of "real science" to explore the supernatural in an effort to identify some evidence of its existence and indeed exploit that knowledge. that this "investigation" is clouded with quacks, fackery and really appalling reality tv shows is the socially unfortunate part.

Not that I think any will be found, but to many its worth the journey. Even a null result can be of value sometimes.

 

When DNA was beyond our individual imagining, no one said DNA was supernatural. No one attributed anything to DNA. It wasn't talked about until there was reason to investigate it.

When quarks were beyond our individual imagining, no one said quarks were supernatural. No one attributed anything to quarks. They weren't talked about until there was reason to investigate them.

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
"a supernatural being"
supernatural


ADJECTIVE
1(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.​

 

Yep

Loud and clear. It's been a looooong time since Johnny Carson busted Uri Geller. Carson's gone. Geller is still around.

In the hope that the null result will someday sink in.

There is a "psychic" on one of these shows now. He is so bad, it's really pathetic:
Your father's spirit contacted me yesterday
Oh, my father is still alive.
I meant to say your grandfather.
He's also still alive. Maybe it was my husband's grandfather.
Yes. He was very fond of you.
He was a dear.
He told me to tell you that this year will be your best year ever.
Oh, I am so glad to hear that. Thank you. How much money do I owe you for today's wonderful reading?

 

On the *genius* of atheists, one of the best known was Isaac Asimov. Raised as a Christian, Isaac was in college and was too lazy to study for a chemistry test, I believe it was. So he prayed to God to pass it. When he failed, Isaac renounced God, to "show Him!"

That worked out so well. Isaac was such a narcissistic, arrogant atheist that he neglected his family and his son, who was arrested a few years ago for peddling child pornography. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Isaac was so ignorant that he never flew in aircraft, despite the fact that commercial aviation is 10 times safer per passenger mile.
*Genius, pure genius*. The nonsense he wrote in some of his books reflect his *genius*. I wrote to his publisher citing many errors in at least one of his books. Isaac wrote back to me without bothering to answer my challenges, because he couldn't!
I sold his postcard on ebay for $75, and Carl Sagan's letter of the same type for $100.

ho ho ho

 

God is entirely subjective and there's nothing wrong with that.

It's like saying to someone to prove to you that you are in pain, or for them to prove to you that they are in pain.

Entirely subjective.

Only the subject can know, and we take it on good FAITH from our own personal experience if their subjectivity is good testimony or bad.

 

The simple fact is NO atheist has built any MEANINGFUL society so far, Communism was a legitimate atheist effort to create a society that made sense to the world-view of atheism. Didn't turn out so well but maybe no fault of atheism, it's just trying to uproot too much at once.

Christ was the new wine in the new wine skin for new wine in old skins would burst. He was the vine to which we are grafted on. He came to fulfill not to destroy.

Atheism didn't do that at all and ran into too much headwind.

 

Still can't actually deal with the issues, eh! You poor pathetic thing you!

 

The argument IS valid. Please make note of the tilde in front of the second premise and the conclusion. As I'm sure you are well aware, the tilde in logic is the symbol of negation. Modus tollens is a valid argument. You seem to be referencing the "affirming the consequent" fallacy, but this is not only not what I wrote; moreover, it wouldn't make any sense given my claim argument.

If you're going to comment, all I ask is that you actually read the posts in which the comments are in reference to, that way nobody wastes any time. Frank has a unique perspective on divine ontology which is why I altered my language concerning naturalism to accommodate his view. Pretty straight forward.

Ironically, you seem to be affirming the consequent here. There are other explanatory accounts right? In addition, there is compelling counter-evidence: horrendous unjust suffering.

 

What's your point?