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

I don't "dismiss" science, I have made a hell of a good living practicing it, and I have noticed that people who claim to be scientific on sites like this one often make better bus drivers than "scientists". They make statements like this one:

News flash, that is not "evidence" OR proof, it is wishful thinking. Until you can point me to the life form in question or evidence of it's existence you have nothing - your conclusion is not supported by the facts. Using your criteria I can find just as much "evidence" for intelligent design in the very same universe you speak of.

And that's okay, if you want to think there is something staring back at you through it's telescope it's fine with me, but don't even bother claiming to have the "scientific" high ground.

 

Present it.

 

News flash...

1. Life is possible, it has arisen at least once in this universe, the probability of life existing in this universe is exactly 1.
2. The material for life is abundant in this universe.
4. The universe has significant age.

Those are facts, are you going to dispute them and tell me that they don't point towards a higher probability that other life exists in this universe than not?

On the other side, we do not have any evidence of even one god existing, ever. So, gods are not even a hypothesis that exists in the same universe of probability compared to that of life.

 

Actually, that IS evidence but not proof. Proof will not come in to play until we actually find life on another celestial body. Evidence however does indeed increase the probability of extra solar and even extra terrestrial life. Anyone with even a smidgeon of scientific understanding and curiosity would understand this, that you do not indicates that your scientific experience is limited and inflated. It is also important to note that just as the human centric universal model has been shown inaccurate the carbon based model will likely be dismissed as well.

 

First of all, it is impossible to prove a negative.

You would need a spacecraft that can cover 14 billion light years in a couple of heartbeats even to try.

 

You cannot prove a negative.

You don't have a fast enough spacecraft.

 

1 is a fact.

2 and 3 are speculation.

Do you not know what a fact is?

There is water on the ground -- fact.

It rained -- speculation.

 

We are going to need some definitions here.

Theism -- God watches over me and helps me when I stumble.

Deism -- God built the clock but left it to tick off by itself.

Agnosticism -- You cannot know if God is.

Atheism -- There is no God. (This however is a faith system based on no faith. It is no more valid than Theism. It could be dead wrong.)

 

I pretty much just stated that....you can however obtain data that increase or eliminate probability. As for spacecraft velocities, we have already sent spacecraft to possible bodies that may very well show biology eventually...this would be where the aforementioned curiosity comes into play and the understanding that life may not be limited to that which we see on earth. 50 years ago we did not think life could exist without sunlight or in boiling water...we were wrong.

 

2 and 3 are not speculation, the evidence supports them to the point that rejecting them would be irrational but, you did it anyway.

 

Theism -- a belief in the existence of a deity that is sometimes a creator and intervenes

Deist -- a belief in the existence of a deity that is a creator and does not intervene

Agnosticism -- a belief regarding the possibilities of knowledge about gods

Atheism -- lack of belief in the existence of a deity

Only the theist and deist make positive assertions regarding gods. As an atheist, I do not do that so I do not have a belief but, I do have skeptical basis for the rejection of an assertion made without evidence which is consistent with how I approach all positive assertions that I could be wrong about.

Regarding, 'there is no God', well actually yes, in that instance the positive assertion of the atheist is correct, there is no God but, there is a very remote possibility that there could be gods and when you produce evidence for one, I may change my mind.

 

Atheism is a faith system without faith.

Agnosticism is science cloaked as religion.

Deism is Modern Philosophy. And God has no time for humankind.

Theism is the Pope, the Archbishop Of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and all the other priests and ministers similar to them.

 

OK, you're not serious, I won't bother then. Enjoy your ignorance.

 

Furthermore the universe doesn't do things in singles! There are multiple stars, galaxies, planets, elements, etc, etc. So for life to have only happened once would be an anomaly given that the conditions exist on at least 2 dozen planets that we have found so far.

 

Yes, once I see how some of these theists define words and think, it becomes quite clear why they are so confused.

 

They don't point to anything, and neither do you, you can't point to one example. Your hypocrisy is laughable. 'I am an atheist, therefore I am "scientific".'

 

Let me see, point to an example of life arising in the universe. Gee, that's a tough one. If only there was life that I could point to. Nope, I have no idea where I'm going to find life in this universe. You win.

 

Who is a Theist ??

 

Based on your curious but nevertheless infantile definitions, only Catholics are capable of being theists, and perhaps not even then:

Look, after reading many of your posts, I've concluded you aren't worth the time. Here's your chance to convince me otherwise.

 

Think, surely you jest!

 

I stated that theism CAN stand in the way of science and that for a significant sub population that is what appears to be happening.

Whether that applies to you is for you to decide. I made no comment on that.

 

Well, one look at homeopathy and it's powerful advocates and protectors in congress lets you know that this isn't just a problem with "the masses".

 

OF course it is the stupidity of the masses. Why would you fault our elected government representatives for taking advantage of the stupidity of their constituents when it can serve to line their own pockets. Isn't that the essential nature of the capitalist system?

 

I haven't seen evidence of the constant pressure for the acceptance of homeopathic "medicine" within the US congress being a case of an elected official or officials doing something for personal wealth.

I'd like to see such evidence.

 

No it's not. You can prove any negative, if you have scientifically supported facts that disprove it. For example, using science, I can prove the moon isn't made of cheese or that an ice cube isn't 1000 degrees. That's the big difference, atheists have no direct evidence, and yet many, in my experience, act like they do. Bill Maher for example, loves to make the claim that science proves that there is no god.