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

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Daggdag, Mar 18, 2017.

  1. Adorno

    Adorno Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I have no objection to what you say here. There are narrow views of theism (traditional theistic accounts: omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.) and broad views (non-traditional views) and there can be corresponding atheistic views (narrow atheism: concerning traditional accounts and broad atheism: concerning non-traditional accounts) and similarly corresponding agnostic views.
     
  2. Adorno

    Adorno Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43
    It appears that he is trying to perfect the ad hominem fallacy.
     
  3. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Applying the exact same argumentation.

    I define gods as imaginary deities.
    Gods are by definition imaginary.
    Therefore, gods do not exist.

    Trying to win a debate by means of definition is a hollow way to go about things. Peurile game playing and mendacious to boot.
     
  4. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously you pretend not get it, and it will do no good to explain it to you so I won't bother.
    One more on my Ignore List.
    ~ciao
     
  5. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All I am doing is replying to your ranting.

    Continue to rant. I'll continue to reply.
     
  6. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great...so we agree that when a person asserts "No gods exist"...that person is asserting that the god I suggest might exist** does not exist.

    ** IF this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...whatever created it can be defined as a creator god. (That such a possible god cannot be summarily dismissed...as some of these guys want to do.)

    Allow me to mention that IF that god actually does exist...it is a part of WHAT IS...it is a part of nature whether we humans are able to know, understand, or accept that or not. It certainly is not essential to a god that it be something outside of the nature of WHAT IS. That quality is simply one assigned to gods by the people who have worshiped gods here on planet Earth...the kind we have agreed are not the limits we are placing on our considerations.

    With that as a predicate...

    ...can we then agree that anyone asserting "No gods exist" bears a burden of proof that almost certainly has to include proving that this thing we humans call "the universe" is NOT a creation?
     
  7. FoxHastings

    FoxHastings Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2014
    Messages:
    56,891
    Likes Received:
    21,024
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Prove there's no god ?.....Trump is President.




    ..even if there was a god, Evil won....
     
  8. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Very simple: that your statement that you can't form an opinion or belief or thought or... whatever you want to call it today... of whether god exists or not using reason and logic, is absurd. It is not a "blind" guess unless you actually like being blind.

    Your response indicates that you either didn't read my post, or that you also like being blind about what I said. Since you don't even make an attempt to respond to it.
     
  9. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nice try at moving the goal posts. But I guess that is your best bet.

    What I have said is:


    I do not know if gods exist or not;
    I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
    I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
    I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

    ...so I don't.

    Try using that and telling me what you find wrong with that...rather than making stuff up and arguing against what you invent.

    I've also said that one cannot arrive at "there are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" using reason, logic, science, or math.

    The only reason I say that...IS BECAUSE ONE CANNOT GET THERE USING REASON, LOGIC, SCIENCE OR MATH.


    Your response indicates that if you are wrong...you refuse to acknowledge being wrong...and instead invent strawmen...and argue against them.

    You are not going to get away with that crap with me...so give it up.
     
  10. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,517
    Likes Received:
    18,642
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right... so your only response to a post in which I show you how you can use those to form an opinion or belief or ... guess (which is not "blind") is "you cannot do what you just did..."

    Ok. I've been in these discussions long enough to know when somebody like you just wants to stick to their dogma. It's useless to keep trying.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
    William Rea likes this.
  11. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you ever get tired of saying that you have done things you obviously have not.

    You cannot arrive at "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are" using reason, logic, science, or math. NO ONE CAN. It cannot be done.

    So dream on.


    Yeah...you've run away before.

    You'll be back. You cannot help yourself!
     
  12. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can't actually reply. All you do is duck. Perhaps you have a future in Duck Dynasty but certainly not here.
     
  13. CourtJester

    CourtJester Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2013
    Messages:
    27,769
    Likes Received:
    4,921
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well perhaps you can tell us the less purile way to go about determining the truth of god's existsnce. It is very simple. If there is no definition of god then of course there is no way to determine god's existance or non existance. Sort of like tell me if tkdtrey exists or is just imaginary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  14. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't see where I claimed that a rational definition of gods is not a good idea before discussing the issues? I have consistently argued for a precise definition of gods for years on internet forums where I have seen obfuscation and lies being used like it has been in this thread.

    However, it is good that after all this time I have your attention so while you're here, I could just as easily defines gods as vague creator entities that might have been responsible for creating a Universe that may or may not have been created. If I used that definition, all I would be doing is arguing for an entity that is a creator that may or may not have created something we perceive as reality so, why use the word gods? Well personally, if I was the type of person only interested in causing disruption in an internet forum I would use the word gods like this.

    My explanation? In the absence of any consistent definition I reason that there is a complete set of 'entities' that humans call gods. There are attributes that define them into subsets. In that complete set of gods there are gods that we don't know about, there are gods that are creators, there are gods that demand blood sacrifice, there are gods that make thunder, there are gods that have inspired humans to write descriptions of gods you get the idea?

    When we talk of gods we either talk about the whole group of gods in that context or we are clear about what subsets we are addressing; I don't talk about 'fruits' when I am specifically addressing 'apples'. So, to demonstrate how objectionable this kind of behaviour is, I took a subset of gods that are 'imaginary' and defined gods as being that therefore, by definition, gods are imaginary and therefore they don't exist so, surely I win!

    Person 1 - Fruits are green
    Person 2 - No, not all fruits are green
    Person 1 - I am right, fruits are green
    Person 2 - Justify that please
    Repeat for about a month...
    Person 1 - I define fruits as apples
    Person 2 - But that's absurd, all fruits are not apples, all you are doing is using the words fruit instead of apple, why are you doing that, kind of sucks to do that doesn't it?
    Person 1 - I define fruits as apples
    Person 2 - Justify that please
    Repeat for about a month...
    Person 1 - That's how I define fruits, I've defined it and I'm not going to discuss it, my way or the highway.
    Pause
    Person 1 - Fruits are green
    Repeat ad nauseum
     
  15. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, you did. Here it is again:

    Really, where is it?

    Elements that make up life are not life. Point me to the life form in question. Try to be as critical in your own thinking as you are in the other guy's thinking.

    Yeah, I know, you are willing to believe anything if a guy who calls himself a "scientist" tells it to you. Why bother to think it through? Now that's faith.[/QUOTE]
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
    Frank likes this.
  16. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Re the old 'amputee' argument, in another thread, the thread has now been locked for exceeding the post limit, so I'll have to reply to it here.
    Basically Ecco wondered why God doesn't grow new limbs for amputees, and I replied-
    "a missing limb doesn't exist, so there's nothing there for God to work with"

    And Ecco then posted this pic to "prove" me wrong-
    [​IMG]

    Nice try Ecco, but no.
    The lizards simple tail was designed to regenerate, but limbs are a whole new ball game..:)
     
  17. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I am replying to your ranting and nonsense.

    Continue to rant and post nonsense...and I will reply.

    No problemo, Jester.
     
  18. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who designed it? Not G....................... Maybe you meant to say 'evolved'.
     
  19. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My response was not in reference to "There is far more evidence..." as you implied.


    Here is the actual exchange...
    My response was in reference to "The elements that make up life are not "life", particularly intelligent life."
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moving on...




    I can't point you to an extraterrestrial life form, yet. If I could, that would be proof.

    However, I did not reference proof, I referenced evidence.

    • There are billions of galaxies in the universe.
    • There are billions of stars in our universe.
    • There are billions of habitable planets in the universe.
    • The elements that make up human life are abundant throughout the universe.
    • The probability that these elements can together to form life on at least one other planet is extremely high - approaching 100%.

    • There have been thousands of gods posited by Man throughout history.
    • I assert all of these gods are a creation of Man's imaginings.
    • You believe all of these gods are a creation of Man's imaginings with one exception. There is no more valid reason to give credence to your exception than there is to give credence to the beliefs of someone who believed in Atlas or to the beliefs of someone who believes in Shiva.
    • The probability of any of these gods being real is zero.

    If you want to discard probability as evidence, Las Vegas would love to have you visit.


    No, I don't. If you called yourself a scientist, I wouldn't blindly accept what you say. I would determine if you had the education and experience in a relevant field before accepting what you say. I don't accept the findings of biologists who claim to be experts in climatology.

    As you can see, I have thought it through.

    As I'm sure you know, there are two different definition for "faith" just as there are two different definitions for "read". Just to refresh your memory, I'll post them again...

    faith
    fāTH/
    noun
    1. 1.
      complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

    2. 2.
      strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

    I do have faith (Definition 1) in the findings of thousands of people who have received education and have studied and worked in all the different branches of science.

    Your faith (Definition 2) is a completely different thing. Your faith is no different than the faith of people living thousands of years ago who believed the answer was GodDidIt. Those people did not have access to science. What's your excuse? Why do you dismiss science? Does it go back to your early childhood indoctrination?
     
  20. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Uh huh.

    [​IMG]
    Not asking for a whole new limb. Just asking why your god, who allegedly can cure cancers and restore sight to the sightless, can't get the rest of the finger to grow back.
     
  21. Adorno

    Adorno Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    43

    Well I think we have to define a few more terms here. What do you mean by creation? Does it require intentionality? Would you say that a universe can come from nothing or at least from eternally existing relativistic quantum fields? If so, would this mean that the universe is created? It seems that if one says that yes this is creation (i.e. the universe is generated via the random behavior of relativistic quantum fields), then I don't think this would entail that all creations require a creator. So I am not inclined to accept the first premise: If A (creation) then B (creator). If one says no, that's not a creation and that creation, in order to be creation, must be intentional and therefore must entail a creator, then I would say that the premise seems right. But if this is true, of course, we will no doubt at some point come back to the question of whether or not this conditional statement has an object of reference.


    This appears to me to need clarification. What constitutes WHAT IS would necessarily have to include things outside the universe by definition, otherwise something in the universe would be responsible for the creation of the universe, which would mean that the universe existed before itself. If it's outside of the universe, then it is possible that there is something natural but not part of the universe. If god then exists outside of the universe, are you suggesting that this being is eternal both temporally and spatially?

    Now I obviously I'm not opposed to the logical possibility of something natural being outside of what refer to the universe, after all I just referenced eternal and natural quantum fields that existed before the Big Bang, but I'm also not opposed to holding the view that quantum fields are part of the universe, and as such that the Big Bang does not constitute the creation of a universe only a new manifestation of it. So I want to be sure to clarify what you mean here.


    Well I think there are a couple of issues here. One I'm not sure what you mean by proof here. It seems that necessary truths are truths primarily (exclusively) of language, concepts, and meaning (analytic), whereas empirical truths are always based on experience and as such are necessarily weaker (moreover, it seems that all empirical claims must be falsifiable). That is, any claim concerning an empirical truth can never be an absolute proof but must always be open to the possibility of revision, as and as such complicates the meaning of proof (in other words, claims of empirical truth are not the same types of truth as mathematical truths). In addition, my above statements address the further ambiguity of what one means by universe and creation (both of which also require definition). So, as you point out in your earlier post, we can't evaluate these types of statements until we know the meanings of those terms.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2017
  22. Frank

    Frank Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2016
    Messages:
    7,391
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'll deal with your first paragraph. When we resolve the "issues" you have, you can move on to the other things. I hope we are not going to be petty.

    By creation...I mean creation. What part of that is stumping you?

    If a thing is created by accident...it is still a creation.

    Mix some baking soda and vinegar together and you will get a reaction. If that "reaction" is actually creating miniature "universes"...you have still created whatever you have created...whether you realize it or not.


    If you accidentally knock over a glass of beer and create a mess...you have created it without regard to any intention.


    No, I would not. I would say what I said: "If the universe is a creation (we do not know it it is or not)...but if it is...it implies a creator.


    See above.



    As I see it...then that is a good reason not to say it.


     
  23. it's just me

    it's just me Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2014
    Messages:
    3,269
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    That's not evidence, it's speculation. And Drakes equation (which is what you are basically quoting here). You even threw in the bit about elements that make up "human life" (and I know it's debatable as to whether humans are all that intelligent, but there it is).

    Wrong, I made none of those claims, stick to arguing your own side of the discussion.

    I don't know how to tell you this, but no matter how many times you flip a coin the odds of getting heads is still only 50/50. There is either intelligent life or there isn't, probability is irrelevant.



    Education and experience, pfft. Auto mechanics practice scientific method every day. But everybody needs someone to look down on and those who practice scientific method with dirt under their fingernails are often dismissed by scientism advocates. But while we're on the subject, I don't accept the claims of biologists who think they are theologians, either.


    This is pure and utter crap, Not only do I not dismiss science, I have made a good living doing it for decades. If you are so scientific why do you commit so many logical fallacies?
     
  24. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I share Senator John McCains view (below) that creatures are too perfect to have evolved by pure random chance, and that there seems to be a guiding hand behind it-
    "I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"
     
  25. Merwen

    Merwen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2014
    Messages:
    11,574
    Likes Received:
    1,731
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Existence itself is sufficient proof that there is some sort of creative principle; whether one chooses to call that "God" or not is more a matter of personal taste than anything else.

    It's Spring, and close to Easter. Go out in the country and watch a leaf sprout or a lamb being born, and then think about that for awhile before you decide.
     

Share This Page